What do Wilson and Cervero (2010) mean by “working the planning table”? What ethical responsibilities do planners have in seeing that all interests are considered? To what extent is democracy possible in the planning process?
Wilson and Cervero (2010) are aware that program planners have a responsibility to put together an advisory committee to accurately depict what is required in programming for serving the adults in the organization and give advice throughout the planning process. Wilson and Cervero (2010, p. 80-83) use the metaphor of a planning table for this advisory committee and refer to the process as “working the planning table.” They give four reasons why it is essential to form these groups on the planning table: 1) to determine the programs purpose, content, audience, and format; 2) make judgements on features of an educational organization; 3) bring attention to the social and political character of educational planning; and 4) connect technical, political, and ethical domains of planning.
The ethical responsibilities of program planners are made clear by Caffarella and Daffron (2013, p. 40), stating, “using an ethical approach in making decisions about education and training programs for adults should be of concern to all parties involved in the process of planning such programs. Apps (1991, p. 113) agrees by stating, “to overlook ethical concerns is a blatant disregard for the value of human beings.” The challenge is who has the power and which interests will they represent in the planning process? Whose interests get to the planning table, and how will those interests shape the program? The planner has to negotiate who sits at the planning table and whose interests bring to the planning table to produce the program. These are the fundamental ethical questions.
A democratic ethos has long been central to planning, thinking, and activity involving the learners (Wilson and Cervero (2010). Everyone has experiences with promoting shared decision-making. This democracy is shared at the planning table to capture the social, political, ethical, and organizational dimensions of planning practice. The intention is to put real people at real planning tables in real organizational settings (Wilson and Cervero, 2010). This democracy is at the root of the planner’s primary activity: negotiating and agreeing about what to do. There must be ethical and democratic principles at the planning table. The final argument is that democratic principles should be observed and involve everyone who can make decisions, which is the ethical stance that should guide planning.
From experience and on a personal note on planning tables, cliches are used repeatedly because they are usually accurate. How about “too many cooks spoil the broth.”
References
Apps, J. W. (1991). Mastering the teaching of adults. Krieger.
Caffarella, R. S., & Daffron, S. R. (2013). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical guide for educators, trainers, and staff developers (3rd ed.). Jossey Bass.
Wilson, A. L., & Cervero, R. M. (2010). Democracy and program planning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 128(2010), 81–89. https://search-ebscohost-com.libraryservices.yorkvilleu.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=url,cookie,ip,uid&db=ehh&AN=55677133
Wilson, A. L., & Cervero, S. R. (1996). Who sits at the planning table. Adult Learning, 8(2), 20.
On Task Teaching 