Category Archives: Blog

If Students Did Not Learn, Were They Taught? No

Posted on by
Reply

Start with this thought experiment.  “If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, did it really fall?”  You’ve heard it before.  It poses the relationship between observation and perception.  If you cannot observe something, it becomes hard to prove that it scientifically exists.  Similarly, Einstein posited that “…the moon does not exist if no one is looking at it.”  Now, extend the thought experiment to this:  “If I taught my students a unit of instruction and they did not learn it, did I really teach them anything?”  The answer is no.

Like observing a tree falling in the forest or the moon in a nighttime sky, the perception of teaching requires an observation of learning evidence in order to prove the reality that teaching occurred.  Just as George Bernard Shaw could not disprove Einstein’s statement that the moon must be observed to prove it exists, a demonstration of successful learning is required proof of successful teaching.

Given the above, why are educational leaders loath to be so direct in their evaluation of teaching?  Why do we place more emphasis on the delivery of instruction than on the learning outcomes teaching is designed to cause?  This is true.  Our scenarios for determining educator effectiveness show that a teacher who demonstrates high scores in the use of models of instructional delivery that result in lower scores of student achievement will be rated higher than a teacher who demonstrates low scores in instructional delivery that results in higher scores of student achievement.  Teaching practices are prioritized over student learning.  Why?

We want there to be a direct cause-effect line between a set of teaching practices and student learning.  But there are variables in the learner that disrupt this causation, we are told.  We know this by the ways in which we manipulate student achievement data based upon the presence of students with special education needs, who live in poverty or unstable home environments, are effected by drug and violence in their community, and attend schools with higher percentages of similar students.  Institutionally, we posit that these students will not demonstrate high levels of achievement in learning as compared with students without these challenges.

Yet, there are many stories of success with highly diverse students.  In each of these stories, teachers who add “the art of teaching” to the science of effective teaching practices find ways to connect their teaching to their students and cause high learning achievements.  These teachers observe falling trees and a nighttime moon, because they are present in ways that exceed and/or differ from the standardized instructional practices.

I refer to Billy Bean in the movie Money Ball.  “If he is a good hitter, why doesn’t he hit good.  We need more players that hit good.”  For Bean, the batter’s technical skills were not as important as the batter’s ability to get on base.  For educators, the teacher’s technical skills matter but not as much as the teacher’s ability to cause all children to successfully learn their grade level or course curriculum.  We need to prioritize our teachers who cause children to get on base and score with high regularity.  Otherwise, a teacher can teach a classroom empty of students or full of inattentive students and still believe that teaching occurred.  Without learning, there is no teaching.

(Prioritizing learning outcomes does not condone a reaching of achievement measures by any means possible.  Breaching professional ethics can and should lead to loss of employment and/or incarceration.)

Academic Standards – The Genome of Proficient Learning

Posted on by
Reply

Academic standards are the genome of a 21st century PK-12 education.  Turn back the covers on any curriculum today and you will find “standards.”  They are the “who says this is the right stuff to teach” credentials of school curriculum.  As consumers, we look for credentialing,  like the Good Housekeeping Seal or Underwrites Laboratory Approval, that gives us reliance that school curriculum is not something cooked up during the summer by a local committee but is written by experts in the field of PK-12 education.

Although politics has kicked dirt on the Common Core Academic Standards, they remain the best of academic standards available to PK-12 educators.  In Wisconsin, the Common Core Standards were adopted as the official academic standards of the Department of Public Instruction in 2010 and are the basis for instruction, assessment and educational accountability.

A genome, even the sound of the word, is scientific.  It is the complete set of genes present in a cell or organism.  By applying genome to the organism of academic standards, academic standards are the complete set of academic characteristics of a graduate of our PK-12 educational system.

Like the genome encoded on a strand of DNA, the genome of academic standards seems just as mysterious.  But, it isn’t.  They are clearly written and complete, just in educationese.  Educational leaders need to take the time and make the effort to de-mystify the verbiage of academic standards into plain speak.  This explanation must include two components – why they are important and how they work.  What are academic standards and how does our school use PK-12 academic standards?  And, what does proficient performance of each standard mean?  The latter is essential, because proficiency or advanced performance indicates the grade level goal which are the code of the genome.

This is what the DPI says about standards.  It is a good beginning.

What are academic standards?

Academic standards tell us what students should know and be able to do in the classroom.  Wisconsin has standards for 24 separate subjects.

Why are academic standards important?

Standards provide goals for teaching and learning. Standards are clear statements about what students must know and be able to do.

What does an academic standard look like?

Seventh grade mathematics: solve real-life and mathematical problems involving angle measure, area, surface area, and volume.

How do standards differ from curriculum?

While standards provide the goals for learning, curriculum is the day to day activity that helps a student meet those goals. Curriculum, which should be thought of as the student’s overall classroom experience, is affected by lesson plans, classroom assessments, textbooks, and more. In Wisconsin, curriculum is developed and approved by local school boards to meet their local needs.

https://dpi.wi.gov/families-students/student-success/standards

This explanation should be repeated to students and parents frequently, so that children and their moms and dads clearly understand that “standards-based” means “these are statements of what each child should know and be able to do and all of our assessments will focus on helping everyone understand how well children know and can perform these.”  And, because the standards build upon each successive grade level and course, students and parents need to know that Algebra and Geometry, for example, are introduced in elementary school arithmetic and are developed through middle school and applied and expanded in higher mathematics courses in high school.  Like the DNA genome, the genome of academic standards winds through the school organism across many years of student learning.

This explanation may sound or read like, “This year our first grade math students will begin to use mathematical operations and algebraic thinking.  Yes, Algebra in first grade.  These are the operations and algebraic thinking standards and a description of what your child will know and be able to do as a result of our first grade math instruction.

Standard:  Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.

Performance:

  1. Use addition and subtraction within 20 to solve word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.
  2. Solve word problems that call for addition of three whole numbers whose sum is less than or equal to 20, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.

Standard:  Understand and apply properties of operations and the relationship between addition and subtraction.

Performance:

  1. Apply properties of operations as strategies to add and subtract.3 Examples: If 8 + 3 = 11 is known, then 3 + 8 = 11 is also known. (Commutative property of addition.) To add 2 + 6 + 4, the second two numbers can be added to make a ten, so 2 + 6 + 4 = 2 + 10 = 12. (Associative property of addition.)
  2. Understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem. For example, subtract 10 – 8 by finding the number that makes 10 when added to 8.

Standard:  Add and subtract within 20.

Performance:

  1. Relate counting to addition and subtraction (e.g., by counting on 2 to add 2).
  2. Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 – 4 = 13 – 3 – 1 = 10 – 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 – 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

Standard:  Work with addition and subtraction equations.

Performance:

  1. Understand the meaning of the equal sign, and determine if equations involving addition and subtraction are true or false. For example, which of the following equations are true and which are false? 6 = 6, 7 = 8 – 1, 5 + 2 = 2 + 5, 4 + 1 = 5 + 2.
  2. Determine the unknown whole number in an addition or subtraction equation relating three whole numbers. For example, determine the unknown number that makes the equation true in each of the equations 8 + ? = 11, 5 = � – 3, 6 + 6 = �.

This standard is just one of many in first grade mathematics instruction.  As your child tells you ‘This is what we learned in math today,’ please keep these standards in mind.  When your child enters second grade, the next instructional year will add to and expand these first grade standards.”

As an extension, good practice would also help children and parents to connect standards to periodic classroom tests and assessments.  Just adding a standards statement to the top of the test page indicates the alignment of preceding instruction and the assessment to a particular academic standard.

The reason for this time and effort points directly to the accountability that school leaders and teachers have for causing all children to learn and proficiently perform grade level academic standards.  Each first grade child who successfully knows and can perform the operations and algebraic thinking standard given in this example will be ready for instruction in second grade operations and algebraic thinking.

And, here is the rub.  Every child who does not successfully know and can not perform the elementary and/or middle school grade level math standards at the appropriate grade level proficiency level begins a parade of successive years of incomplete learning in math.  It is no wonder that high school Algebra is “the wall” for so many students, the course where the annual standards of algebraic thinking in elementary and middle school coalesce into a single math course.  Children who have successfully learned and performed their elementary and middle school math standards are ready and prepared for high school Algebra.  Children who did not are severely challenged in Algebra and all subsequent math courses.

The mutual responsibility that school leaders, teachers and parents have for student learning can be made easier when annual academic standards are explained, distributed across the year of their instruction, and clearly aligned with grade level instruction and assessments.  When we know what we are supposed to do, the doing is made easier.

The genome of academic standards is a road map that is designed not only for instruction, but to aid school leaders and parents to assure that each child successfully learns what they are to know and be able to do each school year.  It is our road map and needs to be closely followed.

Promotional Proficiency – An Educational Promise Unkept

Posted on by
Reply

“I promise…” are words added, often unconsciously, to statements we make to others. Other add-ons include, “… believe me”, “…to be honest with you”, and “… you have my word.” We speak these words and we hear others speak them, but what do they really mean? Do we really make a promise when we say “…I promise” with an expectation of being held to that promise? Does saying “believe me” make a person more believable? If one says “honestly”, does that word make what follows more honest than all else the person usually says?

I am told that these are just colloquialisms, figures of speech, and attention-getters when I respond with “I shall hold you to that promise.” Call me old-fashioned, but grandmother taught us that “a promise is a debt unpaid” and grandfather told us “a man’s word is his bond.” These words matter, because promises that are unfulfilled and statements of honesty that turn out to be lies are and should be held against the speaker. If you say it, you should be committed to living up to your word with hard and clear evidence of effort. People can understand that time and unseen occurrences may prevent complete fulfillment, but they should not forgive meaningless statements of a promise, or a request to be believed, or proclamations of honesty when there is no intention of living up to these words.

That said, I apply this truth-telling to the work of a school board. The American Dream is founded largely on the success of a child’s education. Over-simply stated, learning to read becomes reading to learn and reading complex and complicated information grows knowledge, and skills and problem-solving abilities and these lead to a high school graduate’s readiness for success in college and career. Apply the same scenario to arithmetic and mathematics and you have the backbone of a school curriculum – reading and mathematics. Success in school, children are told, promises preparation and readiness for success in adulthood. This is a traditional school promises and school boards are the keepers of that promise.

What then are we willing to do to pay the debt of this universal promise we make to students and parents, to paraphrase grandmother?

When a child is promoted to first grade and each subsequent grade level, the child is prepared and ready for instruction at that next grade level and when a student graduates from high school the graduate is prepared and ready for post-secondary education.

This is our fundamental promise. It is the premise and foundation for the ladder of PK-12 education. We march cohorts of children through their school years in an enactment of this promise. Take this promise away – tell children and parents that there is no assurance that first grade is necessary for entrance into second grade and middle school is not a preparation for high school – and school becomes the K-Mart of education with blue light specials in every school corridor. The cashier will check you out.

Are we fulfilling our promise? Are all children prepared and ready for their promotion? Not so much. The Wisconsin DPI released its 2018 School Report Cards in late November and a perusal of state data and randomly selected school districts indicates these two facts –

A percentage of children but far from all are proficient, achievement at the advanced of proficient levels, in reading and mathematics. That percentage is higher or lower depending upon school district, and too often, the socio-economic characteristics of the district are a determinant in that percentage.

The percentage of children statewide who are proficient in reading and math is static if not trending slightly downward – approximately 40% of all children are proficient in reading and less than 40% are proficient in math.

In our local schools,

68.9% of elementary children were proficient in reading; 68.2% in math.

48.9% of middle school children were proficient in reading; 39.4% in math.

48.8% of high school children were proficient in reading; 29.2% in math.

We acknowledge that a quality education is comprised of many more variables than proficiency in reading and mathematics. Our local school touts the breadth of its programming in academics, activities, arts and athletics and the high percentage of student participation in the latter three. However, we made no promises other than “access to opportunity” in activities, arts and athletics. We did make promises regarding academics. Promotion means preparation and readiness for what comes next.

Interestingly, the State of Wisconsin proclaims that our local middle school and high school meet our state’s educational expectations and the elementary school significantly exceeds state expectations. Perhaps the State of Wisconsin is no longer a party to the promise of readiness and preparation or takes the promise as lightly given.

Locally, we have our work before us. What are we willing to do fulfill our promise and keep our word? Time will tell, but for secondary students, time is running out.

Classroom Observations Open Door of Black Box Teaching

Posted on by
Reply

Consider this profile.  “I am a professional educator with an earned baccalaureate from a teacher preparation program at our state university.  I am an English major who is an expert in causing children to use language to learn, to clarify and illuminate their understanding of complex and complicated concepts, to communicate with clarity, and to explore the world through the application of language skills.  Children I have taught have excelled in our school and in their education and careers after high school and consistently communicate their successes with me.  After twenty years’ teaching in our school, I remain professionally challenged to be a better teacher.  I love being a teacher in our school.”

And, reconcile this profile with this reality.  “I cannot overcome the extreme anxiety I feel when an administrator or school board member or parent enters my classroom while I am teaching.  Being watched while I teach interferes with my relationship with my students and interrupts my ability to be the teacher I know I am.  Their presence causes me to worry about everything I say and do.  I understand that administrators are required to evaluate me and board members and parents can visit my classroom, but they cause me to be insecure and overly anxious as a teacher.  And, mentors and teaching coaches also cause me to be overly circumspect when they observe my teaching.”

I am pleased to say that almost all teachers in our local school fit the first paragraph.  As a faculty, they are well-educated, well-prepared, skillful and experienced teachers.  In the aggregate, their characteristics make ours an excellent faculty.

At the same time, I am dismayed that almost all teachers in our local school are afflicted with insecurity and anxiety when the black box of their classroom is opened to others.  It doesn’t matter if I walk into their classroom or stand outside an open doorway.  As a group, teachers like and want the security of their black box classroom and become highly anxious when their work is being observed let alone evaluated.

Education is fraught with over-generalizations.  A handful of teachers in our school welcome visitors to their classroom and do not demonstrate or speak of insecurity arising from being observed.  To a person, they say that observation raises anxiety, but they don’t find it to be a negative anxiety.

When my house was being constructed, I liked to watch the work in progress.  One day I asked the carpenters if they bent over more nails they were pounding when I was present and watching than when I was not.  “No, it usually is a knot in the wood I cannot see that causes me to bend a nail.  And, I will curse the knot if you are watching or not watching.  I may bend about one nail in a hundred regardless of who is around.”  I asked the same of the plumbers.  “Your watching me does not change the way I install this sink or toilet.  I know what I am doing and just do it.  And, your presence will not make the water run any sooner.  In fact, if you keep asking questions, you won’t have water until next week.”

I realize the impropriety of generalizing large from small samples.  Yet, the insecurity that arises when black box teaching is observed intrigues me.  I do not compare teaching with carpentry or plumbing, or vice versa, but I do wonder about the root of observational tension.  What is it in teaching that causes so many teachers to be overly anxious when being observed?

Without a research model, I posit these;

  • Causing children to learn has a rich research base, yet remains an inexact science conducted predominantly in single-teacher classrooms with all the variables that a random assignment of children in a diverse community can raise. The most expert of teachers faces times when what children bring to the classroom from home and community obscures the best of lesson plans.  And, as expert teachers know, they must deal with the external before they can approach the internal.  Observers must realize this and shape their conclusions commensurately. If causing a class of children to learn was easy, anyone could do it.
  • Teaching is an extremely interpersonal interaction between teacher and student swayed more often by the affective than the cognitive.  “My teacher likes me” may be the single most important motivator for student learning.  The management of this affect tips student readiness to learn.  It is not difficult to discern children in a classroom who strongly believe “my teacher does not like me.”  Work on the affective to get to the cognitive.
  • Education is built upon a variety of goals, often too many and more often too transient, and a teacher is expected to be effective on every goal.  Without pre-agreement of the purpose of the observation, it is reasonable for a teacher to be dismayed and disgruntled in the vacuum of “what are they looking for today?”  Observers and teachers need to talk about observations often enough so that teachers understand what and why observers, board members especially, make observations. We need more talk about opening the black box.
  • Every observation is a real or pseudo evaluation of sorts.  Administrators have a clear and defined responsibility to observe teachers for effective educator characteristics.  Observations combined with other measures, including student achievement, comprise professional evaluation.  No other observers of classroom teaching are formal evaluators, yet classroom teachers rightfully know that every non-administrator observer also is reaching evaluative conclusions from the observations.  Hence, observation equals evaluation, some official and most unofficial.  Observers also need to understand and honor this knowledge. Being observed by others is a natural and rational event in a school setting.
  • Contemporary politics have converted union-protected, tenured teachers into “at will” employees.  The loss of union and tenure status means that, given a due process review, a bad evaluation may cause teacher termination without recourse.  “At will” employees may be anxious when their work is observed. Observers need to know that Act 10 in Wisconsin changed the playing field and many veteran teachers still are not comfortable in the new realities.
  • Data is the current driver of educational accountability.  Data that is objective and standardized can be understood.  Data is now part of every teacher’s professional evaluation.  Information derived from observations that are subjective and not-always-standardized can be harder to understand, to explain, and to mutually agree upon. A teacher may rightfully be anxious in wondering “What data snapshot will be derived from this observation?
  • Most unofficial observations do not result in feedback to the teacher.  On the one hand, feedback from an unofficial observation can make it a more official observation.  But, no feedback leaves a teacher wondering “Just what did they see?”  A non-evaluative observation deserves feedback from the observer to the observed, if nothing else than to repeat “this was non-evaluative.”

Against these rationales for anxiety, I respond with “Get over it and get used to it”.  As a member of the school board, I represent the voters of the community in every aspect of our public education.  The board hires a professional faculty and staff, an administrative team to execute board policy and all relevant school laws and rules, and sets district direction and procedural regulations through policy.  More than this, board members have a obligation to formulate first-hand information about the schools so that, as a school board, members can attest to the quality of district operations.  Whereas, most information a board member receives is second- and third-hand as reported and presented by the administration, first-hand observations are invaluable for a board member to be able to say “I know this…”  I also reiterate, “Your principal makes evaluations; board members do not evaluate.  I appreciate the work that you do everyday to cause children to learn.’

As with all human endeavors, if you know what to expect, don’t be overly surprised by your experiences.  A black box classroom may be a teacher’s professional workplace 90% of a school day, as everyone in the schoolhouse goes about their daily business and no one is looking in.  But in knowing that observations and evaluations are part of their professional work, every teacher should become accustomed to and ready for eyes looking at him or her.  Opening the doors and windows of the black box is good educational policy and practice – good for all concerned.

Expand Your First-Hand Knowledge To Grow Your Credibility

Posted on by
Reply

First-hand, second-hand or third-hand:  how “handy” is your decision making?

When you make a decision based upon information, which of the following do you find most credible?

First-hand – information gathered by what you personally have heard, seen and experienced.

Second-hand – information told to you based upon the personal observations and experiences of others.

Third-hand – information regarding the observations and experiences of people gathered and retold by others.

Elected members of school boards face this question frequently when confronted with a school problem or an issue requiring board action.  This is a dilemma of positional relationships.  How many “hands removed’ can a board member be and still render just decisions that portray a thoughtful consideration of all information sources?  As every information teller has built in biases, how can a board member sift information and bias to reach a credible understanding, and, as distance grows between first-hand involvement and resulting information sharing, how can a board member filter the levels of functionality that can color the information the board hears?

School boards employ school faculty, staff and administrators.  Faculty and staff work directly with students and the parents of students as week as community members who come to school.  Many meaty questions and issues are created at this level of the school district as this is where the greatest number of employees work and personal interactions arise that can result in a conflict of interests.  Whereas, we tend to focus of teacher-student interactions in and around the classroom, adult-child interactions on the school bus, on the playground, in the cafeteria, in the hallways, in the school offices, on the playing fields and in the locker rooms, on the stage, and at night and weekend activities account for a greater number of interactions than teacher-student.  Each and every one of these interactions creates first hand experiences that shape the school experiences of persons involved.  It is difficult to know which interactions will generate an issue that must be resolved, although when a hot issue rises everyone involved knows it for what it is.

One level of functionality away, administrators supervise and evaluate school faculty and staff.  Administrative functions mean that most interactions are with faculty and staff and some are with students, parents, and community members.  Often, student and parent interactions are referred to the administrator by faculty and staff.  Their span of responsibility places administrators at the second-hand of most faculty and staff interactions with students and parents.  Others tell administrators of their first-hand experiences or submit a report about their experience.

Administrators, of course, are first-hand in their interactions with those they supervise.  A majority of administrative first-hand experiences are casual and informed by “walking about” or “being present” around the school.  Administrators who take a holistic approach to their function look at classrooms as representing teachers, children, instruction, learning, curriculum, orderliness, furniture, technology, climate, lighting, air temperature and quality, cleanliness and, at the end, the administrator understands a satisfaction or dissatisfaction with what has been seen and heard and felt.  Extend this holistic approach to the school campus and every room of the school and you approach the first-hand experiences of an administrator.

The board supervises and evaluates administrators and this places the board at a third-hand relationship to faculty and staff interactions with students and parents and second-hand to interactions between administrators and faculty and staff.  Everything that is first-hand to a “holistic experiencing” administrator is second-hand to the board.  Everything that is first-hand to children and teachers and staff and is told or reported to an administrator who reports stories of these experiences to the school board is third-hand to the board.

Confusing?  Perhaps.  Consequential?  You bet.  Board members have an exceptionally small amount of first-hand experiences in the school environment.  School board meeting agendas are chock full of presentations and reports based upon second- and third-hand interactions with information and experiences.  All data is filtered.  All stories are filtered.  And, every second- and third-hand reporting of information and explaining of conclusions drawn from data and school experiences calls credibility and trust into question.  When the data and stories are objective and all persons are in agreement with the reporting, credibility and trust are assumed and not an issue.  And, most board agenda items are in this category.

However, when stories do not jive, when the “handedness” of information gathering, interpretation, and storytelling creates different versions of the same interaction, the board is placed in a “Which version is more credible and who do you trust more?” dilemma.  When disputations arise – on a school bus between driver and children, on the baseball team between coach and players, regarding student achievement on state assessments, between administrators and students and parents regarding a disciplinary issue, and between employee groups on “turf issues” – the board must moderate, arbitrate, or adjudicate a resolution.

Often, this is a “no win” dilemma.  In the immediacy, the board faces an either/or proposition.  There may well be middle ground, but disputing persons view these as win-lose situations.  Overtime, the either/or can become a we/they issue and if the board tends to believe we more than they, they lose confidence in the justness of the board and the system.

Consequential?  Unbelievably.

Arbitrarily, board members have been held or hold themselves in distanced relationships with students, parents, faculty and staff.  Board members have been “schooled” into believing that the handling of issues at the first-hand is the responsibility of their administrators.  Board members are told not to communicate directly with teachers and staff and principals, but with the superintendent who communicates down the chain of command with all employees.  Board members, by design, have been relegated to second- and third-hand information.  Hence, board members are constantly in the chair of “do we support the information filtering and storytelling of our administration or not?”

Balderdash.  There is no statute or rule that precludes school board members from commingling in the life of the schools so as to be first- or second-hand to the information that is the lifeblood of the system.  Being first-hand never places the board member into a faculty or a staff or an administrative function.  When in the first-hand mode, that is, a board member observing in the classrooms, hallways, media centers, cafeterias, auditoriums and athletic areas of the schools, board members are in an oversight function.  They are not supervising children.  They are not evaluating employees.  They are witnessing the manner in which the programs and policies approved by the board are playing out for the education of all children and for the professional work of all employees.

Board members cannot be first-hand to everything in a school.  That is neither possible nor desired.  However, when members have enough first-hand information against which they can weigh the second- and third-hand information they are provided, then board decisions are seen by all stakeholders as being better informed of a complete picture and more just to the realities of all concerned.  Trust is not blindly given, it is earned.  A board member observing employees at their daily work – administrators, teachers and all staff – with frequency and objectivity sees credible work first hand and can trust that credibility.  Employees observing board members observing their work with frequency can credibly know that the board member is creating a base of first-hand knowledge.  Trust flows both ways when people work to establish credibility.

I encourage fellow board members to invest in first-hand experiences in their schools.  Remember your level of function and gain a balance to your informed understanding of the life and times of your school district.  If you keep to your function, that is board oversight, you are in a great position to support every person in your school community by being credible and balanced in your understanding of first-, second-, and third-hand stories.