Integrity Matters:  Teach the Uncomfortable to Cause Deep Learning

It is easy as a retired educator to bull my neck and growl at the social/cultural/political powers that demand schools teach their self-interested and slanted content and opinions.  I no longer have skin in the game or employment to protect.  I also have the advantage of location; Wisconsin is not Florida or Texas, thankfully, where legislators mandate curriculum, ban books, and threaten teachers who would teach differently.  Yet the fumes of bias drift all over our nation and cause educators to blink.  Can we teach uncomfortable topics to children today?  The answer is we must if we are to cause children to achieve deeper learning and understanding of their world.  Teaching anything in the realm of the uncomfortable is always couched within the guardrails of teacher professionalism for knowing what, when, and to what degree to teach any curriculum.  Our integrity as teachers requires us to teach the uncomfortable.

Why is this critical to educators today?

First, school governance has become the new focal interest for activism.  Partisan and ultra-partisan activism is embedded in our Congress and statehouses.  Bills reflecting the activist agenda are queued up for partisan majority approval.  Like an army of ants looking for new grass, activism in many areas of our nation is moving into school board meetings with demands of what and what not to teach.  They are proving a democratic truth that school boards are the real grass roots of politics and community action and approval.  School board meetings and their agendas are public and accessible.  A second truth is activism loves controversy.

https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2024/february/can-school-boards-survive-the-parents-rights-movement

Second, the pandemic created tension between school boards and parents and the local community.  Disparate perspectives regarding school closure, masking, and vaccination requirements caused many communities to have animated and heated agreements and disagreements with their school board.  It was a two-sided argument with information and emotion on both sides.  Board rooms are used to contending with controversy.

Third, life in 2024 is confronted with facts and unfacts, truths and lies, and propaganda from all fronts.  Educators at all levels face the challenge of teaching children how to discern truth from untruth, bias in every perspective, and how to arrive at informed and defendable understandings.

https://www.ascd.org/blogs/confronting-the-uncomfortable-strategies-to-teach-enslavement

To post hole on a current hot issue, the Israeli/Hamas war brings one, two, and three above to the forefront of teaching decisions.  It is such a rich and problematic issue.  Children need to learn about the Holocaust, Zionism, the creation of Israel from a Palestinian homeland, the many conflicts between Israel and Arab/Islamic nations, human rights regardless of nationality or faith, Constitutional rights to speech and protest, and how colleges, universities, and cities respond to protesting demonstrations.  And the confusion of conflating religious beliefs with national/governmental actions.  To repeat, this is a rich and problematic issue.  It is a critical and teachable moment for teachers and children and for the profession of teaching.

Integrity

The Wisconsin Teacher Standards include “Professional Learning and Ethical Practice”.  Specifically, “the teacher uses evidence to continuously evaluate the teacher’s practice, including the effects of the teacher’s choices and actions on pupils, their families, other educators, and the community”.

https://dpi.wi.gov/education-workforce/prepare/educator-preparation-programs/wi-educator-preparation-standards

To teach with integrity today, educators need to consider how they will address this teachable moment against their understanding of the Ethical Practice standard.  There are many professional decisions tobe made for each teachable moment.

An example of teaching the uncomfortable.

In 1992 we took all students in the Whitefish Bay High School (WI) to see the motion picture, Malcolm X.  In 1993, we took all students to see Schindler’s List.  As the high school principal, I worked with our parent support groups to understand how each movie was a teachable moment for children in our Milwaukee suburb with a significant Jewish population and a significant inclusion of non-resident Black students from Milwaukee in our student body.  With parent support I worked with our faculty to gain approval and instructional designs for creating teachable moments outside our annual curriculum. 

Each movie provided an opportunity for pre-teaching, movie attendance, and post-teaching.  We provided parents with the option for their children to not see either movie and had meaningful, parallel curriculum for their study so they could participate in the pre- and post-instruction of what it meant to be Black in America in the context of Malcolm X and to understand the genocide of Nazi Germany against Europe’s Jewish population. 

The decision to do this was compelling but not necessary in the teaching of our usual curriculum.  It became compelling and necessary as we considered how to best teach our children about two issues, racism and ethnic/religious genocide, that pervade our national and world history.  Our ethical responsibility supported a decision to teach the uncomfortable.  I look back on our faculty and parents with great pride and with admiration for our superintendent and school board who supported our teaching the uncomfortable.  We took our students to the opening week showing of each movie and caused an indelible learning episode in their school lives.

Carpe’ teaching the uncomfortable.

School boards provide their teachers with a vetted and approved annual curriculum.  The decision to disrupt children’s learning of this standards-based instruction must be taken very seriously.  Taking an entire school to the movies is a big leap.  Teaching the uncomfortable is strategic.  It is not everyday schooling.  However, there is plenty of room within the approved standards of our social studies and ELA curriculum for inspecting the uncomfortable and contemporary issues of daily life and news.  Any discussion of campus protests over the Israel/Hamas war opens children to background, historical instruction, analysis of religious and national entities, and policies that support national treaties and human welfare.

Any discussion of economics opens children to background and historical instruction on the equity of all Americans’ access to property, employment, and financial security in their American Dream.

Any discussion of local school policies regarding gender and student access to school facilities and team sports opens children to a discussion of diversity.

Any discussion of nation, state, and local community opens children to a discussion of migration, population trends, ethnic and cultural diversity, and a changing, multi-cultural America.

An ethical position to teach the uncomfortable is high ground.

Children need a solid education in grade level and course curriculum.  Teaching the uncomfortable are strategic decisions designed to capture teachable moments.  It is not everyday work.  Some teachers are uncomfortable with the uncomfortable.  For the educator who is comfortable, there is room for many educators on the high ground of teaching the uncomfortable.  Grab it and teach!

Adult Hypocrisy About Children and Technology Knows No Bounds

“My hypocrisy knows no bounds.”  This is a memorable line by Doc Holliday in the movie, “Tombstone”.  In another context Doc’s line is an accurate portrayal of adult perception of children, their cell phones, screen time, and social media use and generational distress. 

This morning, I listened to a podcast conversation.  Three participants, nationally recognizable people, mulled how cell phones and screen time cause depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues for children.  They each told personal and professional stories to support the contention that cellphones, screen time, and social media are root causes of why so many children are distressed.  I heard teeth gnashing and “isn’t it awful” sermonizing about the ill effects of technology, as if only children use technology.

“Balderdash”, I said aloud.  “Just one more case of adults telling children to ‘do as I say, not as I do’”.  If too much time on cellphones, screen time, and social media is bad for children, it is just as bad for adults.  “Adults, your hypocrisy once again knows no bounds!”.

Why do I claim adults are hypocrites?

Adults spend as much time using cell phones, screen time, and online social media as children.

 Consider the following.

  • On average, American adults spend more than 11 hours per day watching, reading, listening to, or interacting with screens.
  • Children aged 8-12 spend an average of 4 hours and 44 minutes per day on screens.
  • Teens spend an average of 7 hours and 22 minutes per day on screens, not including time spent on screens for schoolwork.
  • 69% of American adults use social media sites, spending an average of 2 hours and 3 minutes per day.
  • The average person checks their cell phone about 63 times per day.
  • 29% of US adults say they spend more time on screens than they intend to.
  • 97% of children report using a smartphone daily.
  • 51% of seniors aged 60 or older spend more than half of their daily leisure time on screens.
  • On average, adults consume 15.5 hours of media per day through various devices.

https://gitnux.org/screen-time-statistics

  • “Adults between the ages of 18 and 29 spend the most time on their smartphones, spending an average of 3 hours and 53 minutes per day.”

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/parents-spend-three-times-more-time-on-phone-than-what-they-spend-with-children-study/articleshow/106125378.cms#

  • “Three out of five American parents admit they spend more time on their electronic devices than their kids do.”

https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/parents-spend-more-time-on-phones-than-withkids.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThree%20out%20of%20five%20American,a%20minimum%20of%20two%20devices

  • “While their timecards might say they are putting in a full day, many employees are devoting all of their time in the office to their work.  Many are distracted by their mobile devices, spending hours each day texting, shopping or scrolling on social media.”

https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/10102-mobile-device-employee-distraction.html

No high ground for adults.

Any person can Google information regarding cell phones, on screen time, and the use of social media and arrive at data that may be similar or different.  The numbers may vary but the trending statements do not.  We, adults, and children alike, spend large amounts of time every day using our cell phones and screen devices.  As adults, we chastise children for being on screen too much of their day and night, but we are no more than the pot calling the kettle black.

Of interest, children do not come from the womb with a digital device.  I frequently ask kids in school “Who purchased your phone?”, and “Who pays the monthly bills for your cell phone, Internet, and social media?”.  99.9% say, “My parents”.  Adults pay for their children’s dependence upon digital devices and then adults proclaim online time to be a child’s problem! 

Pogo always is right.

We learned from the “Pogo” comic strip long ago (1948-75), “We have met the enemy, and he is us!”.  We, people of all ages, are heavy users of technologies – cell phone, screen devices, and social media.  Even my Luddite friends who refuse to buy a cellphone spend hours each day in their workplace on screen, Googling for information, and e-mailing.  The only true Luddite today lives in a cave and is invisible to the world.  If too much use causes distress and ill-health, then we all are the enemy and we all are victims of self-inflicted distress.  Is childhood depression different than adult depression?  Do we have entire generations now under a cloud of malaise?  Or shall we honestly admit that life in the epoch of technology is distressing.

What now?

Augustus McCrae taught us in Lonesome Dove, “Yesterday is gone and there is no getting it back”.  However, if we could make some of tomorrow look like yesterday, consider these.

  • Insist children go outside and play.  But is it safe?  Thou shall not fear the neighborhood.  Children are 100 times more likely to be hit by lightning than to be kidnapped.  Yet we do not panic when children play in the rain or get caught outdoors in a thunderstorm.  Encourage them to explore the areas where they live and to enjoy their adventures. 
  • Stop demanding children have cellphones because you worry about school shootings.  “I need immediate contact all the time!”  Since 2012 only .009% of schools in the US experienced a school shooting.  This does not dismiss the serious of school shootings, but most child deaths due to gun violence occur in the home not at school.  Strapping children of all ages with a cellphone in case of a violent event at school gives children license to use their cellphone for all reasons but a violent event.
  • Ask as many children as you are able “What do you think about…?”, and “How do you feel about …?”, and listen.  We need to speak person-to-person not through our screens.  We want to hear and see them speak, note their body language, and accept their emotions.  And we want them to see us doing these things.  Then we can tell them what we think and feel with more credibility.
  • Invite children to “Come with us” and spend more time together.  Proximity breeds personal engagement.  “Let’s do … together” crosses the boundaries of age and differences and every time we do things together makes the next time more likely to happen.
  • Shut down our devices, sit beside a child, and just be.  Let the children fill in the gaps if they choose to.  Stop being the parent all the time; it’s okay to be yourself. 

Another good quote about hypocrisy is “My hypocrisy only goes so far”.  It is time for us to rein in our hypocrisy instead of reining in the lives of our children.

Cursive – If You Can’t Write It, You Can’t Read It.  Let’s Write a Wrong.

We, two granddaughters and I, were at the kitchen counter investigating their great grandmother’s recipe cards.  We wanted to bake something new for us.  Each recipe was written on a 3 x 5-inch index card and stored in a lidded, wooden box not much bigger than the card.  There were more than 150 cards, and each brought back to me wonderful memories of main dishes, cookies and pastries, home made ice cream and cakes, and breads.  My memories were not only in the words of the recipes but recalled tastes and smells.  The girls did not have such memories.

The three of us each held a couple of cards, but I was the only one reading.  “What recipes do you girls have?”, I asked.  Silence.  One granddaughter, a junior in high school, National Honor Society member, with more than a 4.0 gpa, asked reluctantly, “Is this cursive writing?  I can’t read cursive.”  Her middle school sister, also a 4.0 student, shook her head as well.  “No entiendo”, she said.  She can read, write, speak, and understand Spanish, but not cursive.

“Can you write in cursive?”, I asked.  Each said “nope”, a universal response meaning “can’t do it, Gramps”.

With a little Googling, I asked them to read a copy of the Declaration of Independence in its original hand-written form.  “Nope”.  This was not without trying.  I did not let them off with a quick “no can do” but asked them to concentrate on the first paragraph.  Still a “no can do”.

What did they learn instead of cursive?

I knew the answer as to why they could not read these recipe cards or one of our nation’s fundamental documents.  Retired from school administration as I am, I recall installing the Common Core Standards 20 years ago with these two English/Language Arts benchmarks.

  • By first grade, a student shall print the letters of the alphabet.
  • By fourth grade, a student shall type a full page of content in a single sitting.

My granddaughters are Common Core students.  We taught children to print in block letters.  Then we taught them to use the keyboard.  We did not teach them to write in longhand, in cursive.  This is not to say that a few elementary teachers didn’t keep their cursive letter cards attached to the wall above their white boards as a reminder of days gone by.  They did, but we did not include cursive writing in our required curriculum. 

Just to check, I read the introduction to the Declaration aloud to my grand girls and asked them write what they heard.  They did so in neat, legible block letters, upper and lower case.  They stylized their letters a bit, but they did not write in cursive.

Is the loss of cursive important?

The “reading wars” and a return to phonics-based reading instruction is not yet a done deal, but almost.  A solid phonic-based instruction in Wisconsin requires the teaching of nine components, including phonemic and phonetic awareness, and the use of phonics to interpret letters into sounds and into words.

The program also includes the ability to communicate by encoding sounds into letters and words that portray meaning and the ability to create written communication.  And children must have an adequate background knowledge from which to meaningfully communicate.  Many original documents are part of their background knowledge, and they are in cursive.  “No entiendo” to reading cursive shuts children off from accessing important background information.

A second loss is in thought processing.  When I use the keyboard, I am thinking and typing simultaneously.  What I think appears on the screen.  The thinking processes are quick time with little to no consideration of quality.  Auto correct flash’s spelling and grammar errors.  But nothing auto corrects my thinking.  Garbage in and garbage out because everything I do on a keyboard is draft work.

Cursive on the other hand is thought about, considered more slowly, and more slowly put to paper.  When writing in cursive I think about what I want to write because writing by hand is an effort and takes time.  I see more exactly the words and ideas coming out of the tip of my pencil or pen and as longhand becomes sentences and paragraph, I am more aware of what I have written than when I keyboard.  Right now, I need to read the lines above to know what I tried to write.  For kicks, I will write the next paragraphs in cursive and then keyboard them.

Yep, cursive, for me, is more metacognitive.  I am more into writing when I do it in longhand.  The downside is that in the 70 years since I learned cursive, my penmanship has suffered – badly!

It was not just the common core.

Penmanship.  Teaching and practicing penmanship were laborious for teachers and children.  I was taught the Palmer Method.  My grandmother was certified as a teacher of the Palmer Method using her right hand and her left hand.  Children in other schools learned Spencerian, D’Nealian, or Zane-Bloser.  Today’s cursive includes New American Cursive, combining these older styles only making it more legible, easier to use, and faster to write because there are fewer loops.

No matter the method, cursive takes time.  No matter the method, almost all children write it differently depending on how they hold a pen, how they move their hand across the page, and, of course, their small muscle motor skills.  We can type much more rapidly than we can write in long hand. 

And no matter the method, evaluating and grading penmanship grated on teachers and children.  What is an A, B, or C in penmanship if another person can read it? Each person’s cursive is their own.

Saying good-bye to cursive in schools seemed an easy farewell.

Why cursive now?

Everything in school is speeding up.  Speed is attached to our craving for technology and its applications. Quick time derives from our over-the-top curriculum that keeps adding learning to our school day and never reducing it.  We must work faster.  We accept speed when we teach reading and content comprehension through passages instead of complete books.  All standardized tests of reading comprehension require a child to read a paragraph and answer several questions.  We reduce the amount children read to get them to selected comprehension skills faster.  Every child has a laptop, Chromebook, or iPad.  We want instantaneous access and fast productivity.

Whoa, I say.  Some of us want to slow it all down because speed also may be the reason today’s student outcomes are not as good as we want them to be.  We need to give children more time to intake information, consider and mull meaning, consider best options, and create best answers instead of fast answers.  Good thinking takes time.  Good thinking takes consideration and reconsideration.  Finally, writing to communicate our good thinking warrants the taking of time.

Back to teaching cursive.  While printing block letters is slow and typing on a keyboard is fast, longhand is the medium in between.  We write longhand faster than we can print but not as fast as we can type.  There are many instances in school and in daily living when printing is just too slow.  And a keyboard is not available.  Cursive provides a better way to take notes, copy something, and send a message.

Cursive writing gives children planning and processing time for the work at hand.  Think about it then write it, instead of writing and then considering it.

Cursive is personal.  My penmanship is my penmanship, and your penmanship is yours.  In a culture of mass production and fast Amazon Prime delivery, we can enjoy and appreciate things that really are crafted and one-of-a-kind.

We also need some balance between life and high-speed tech.  While AI and its creative applications truly speed the production of communicative, cursive counterbalances high speed with high cognition.

Every now and again we get a chance to reconsider past actions.  We canceled cursive years ago.  Now we can correct that decision and help children and future adults write in their future. 

https://triblive.com/local/regional/cursive-handwriting-makes-a-comeback-in-elementary-schools

Esprit de Corps Elevates Teacher Capacity to Cause All Children to Learn

Noble purpose and fraternity.  These are two aged concepts, yet they are the time-tested bonds uniting a band of people committed to a cause and to each other that allows them to move the proverbial mountain while others around them shovel gravel.  They are words that, if you must speak or define them to others, place the listener outside the circle of understanding of the power and force of esprit de corps

Esprit de corps is real.

What is it that causes collaborative work to reach a recognized higher plane of excellence?  As a French language term, esprit de corps is associated with both fictional and real-life manifestations.  We conjure D’Artagnan and the three musketeers yelling “One for All and All for One” and charging the guards of Cardinal Richelieu in the Alexander Dumas novel.  We hear the Marine Corps motto of Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful) and remember actual stories of courage in battle that are part of American lore.  Beyond Musketeers and Marines, how does esprit de corps apply to the work of teachers in a public school?  Or does it not?  I believe it does.

Esprit de corps cannot be manufactured.

We too often believe that teamwork and team management are the same as esprit de corps.  They are not.  I do not dis the value of teamwork.  Teaming adds the values of group membership, agreed upon group goals, concerted collegial work effort, and team recognition.  We form teams readily for our recreational activities, sports, and non-sports.  We team for organizational fund raising.  We team for a great number of spontaneous reasons – almost like crowdfunding – that draw us together for a short-lived purpose.

Organizational gurus work the circuit of conferences and book signings touting their recipes for increasing TEAM.  A common plan for increasing organization teamwork looks like this.

#1 – Know and communicate your clear WHY?

#2 – Create and communicate your value system

#3 – Live by your own values

#4 – Create a common aim

#5 – Hold a siege

#6 – Be aspirational

#7 – Celebrate

# 8 – Eat together

#9 – Communicate with passion

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nine-secrets-creating-culture-esprit-de-corps-within-your-brown

If real esprit de corps can be artificially manufactured in this way, why then do we keep talking about low employee morale and trying to find the next magic bullet that will align employees to employment purposes?  Why do we look for the next guru and keep attending the next conference?  Because true esprit de corps is not manufactured, it is birthed and continuously nurtured.

Teaching as a calling.

When interviewing teacher candidates, I often ask “Is teaching your calling?”  “Calling” is another of those seemingly antiquated concepts, yet it is a feeler question to discern those who understand what it is to be innately drawn to a purpose greater than employment.  It exposes a teacher’s intrinsic motivations to teach.  The “called” are passionate about teaching.  A candidate who understands the question typically hesitates to ensure she heard the question correctly and then explains how her itch to teach cannot be satisfied with scratching – she needs to teach to fulfill her greater needs.  This is not to say that all teachers must feel the calling to be successful teachers; they do not.  There are many teachers who cause children to learn and consider teaching their job not their passion.  An intrinsic passion to the noble purpose of teaching is a fire that burns brighter in the called and pushes them to do more than their job without questioning why.

Fraternity + passion = esprit de corps

Add fraternity to passion and the seed of esprit de corps is born.  The fraternity may begin with two teachers with similar assignments seeing themselves not as individual teachers in separate classrooms but as partners in the same assignment.  Collaboration and mutuality build fraternity.  Sharing concerns, combined problem-solving, and the enjoyments of success based upon passionate commitment build fraternity.  Fraternity often begins with the tangibles of friendship and grows to the intangibles of brother- or sisterhood. 

Cadre building is a contributor to nurturing esprit de corps.  Strong cadres form themselves when individuals identify their common cause.  Cadres can be differentiated from spontaneous or assigned teams by the bonds of their fraternity.  Perhaps, a cadre is a super team, a team that exceeds teaming because its members are bonded with esprit de corps.  Building a cadre of impassioned teachers is easy – you just give the time and opportunity and this key question – “what should we do?” – then let them go. 

Some argue that cadre building begets favoritism and the separation of faculty into factions.  I argue that every organization that achieves significant purposes over time contains a cadre or cadres of impassioned persons at its core.  Nurtured by institutional goals, cadres of impassioned persons are the heart of esprit de corps.  Consider the school organizations that are recognized as high performing, elite, exemplary – you choose the word meaning extraordinary – and you will find esprit de corps, cadre strength, and impassioned work at its core.

Leadership nurtures esprit de corps then gets out of the way.

If esprit de corps can be a powerful force in schools, why doesn’t it exist everywhere?  Simply stated, esprit de corps flourishes where school leadership also is driven by noble purpose and fraternity, understands its dynamics, and gives these time, resources, and opportunity to work.  Although it seems that leadership sublimates the cadre, it does not – leadership nurtures cadre work, including giving earned and appropriate internal and external recognitions.  Cadre work can outgrow the apparent work of leadership, and this is the pivot point at which leaders and cadre collegial extend their excellence or leadership extinguishes the cadre.  It is a control issue.  Nothing kills esprit de corps more than the artificial controls of leadership operating for other purposes.

Too often leadership and their cultural design cause teachers to become independent contractors working in isolation in closed-door classrooms.  This is a real phenomenon in school historically and today.  It is too easy when this condition exists to do nothing and allow education to sink into mediocrity.

Every period of excellent in student outcomes is associated with teacher esprit de corps.

In hindsight, we can identify many schools that enjoyed a “golden era” of student successes.  Peel back the layers and you will find an esprit de corps that flourished with enlightened leadership and a band of teachers whose passion and fraternal instincts caused them to excel in the noble purpose of teaching.

Now that you have elected new board members, make them be trustworthy

Public trust is given to school board members and that trust must be repaid through the members’ informed and active governance of our schools.  Boardsmanship is an active not a passive trust.

It is spring election time, and two school board seats are on the local ballot.  There are no other school district issues to be decided.  If the past informs the future, less than 30% of the eligible voters will decide the two people who will be part of our seven-member school board.  As a generalization, this is the usual pattern of school board elections – 30% or fewer of eligible voters decide who governs our school district.  The generalization does not hold when there is a school referendum or money on the ballot.  Two years ago, almost 70% of eligible voters cast ballots on big money referendum questions and for the persons running for board election that spring.  Dollars and cents issues raise more voter interest than electing who governs our schools. 

Continuing in a predictive mode, fewer than 50 of the voters in the school board election will attend a school board meeting in the next year.  Some of the 50 may physically attend numerous meetings, but fewer than 50 names will appear in person.

That said, how does the public go about the work of trusting elected school board members?

Explicit and implicit trust.

Wisconsin statute 120.12 defines school board duties.  The first two duties set the expectations.  These are –

  • Management of the school district, and
  • General supervision.

Board members are responsible for the “… possession, care, control and management of the property and affairs of the school district…” and are authorized to “… visit and examine the schools of the district, advise the school teachers and administrative staff regarding the instruction, government and progress of the pupils and exercise general supervision over such schools…”.   Subsequent sub-sections of the statute define the scope of sub-duties.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/120

In the care, control and management of the school district, there are three top order priorities.  These are –

  • Safe and secure schools.
  • Defined curricular instruction leading to quality student outcomes.
  • Inclusive extra-curricular programs, including athletics and fine arts.

These are non-negotiably explicit.  All issues of safety and security race to the school board agenda demanding immediate attention.  Everything from violence on the campus to drop off time on school bus routes to locks on bathroom stall doors is explicitly a board member’s concern.  Failure to resolve any of these issues invites public furor and assurance that someone else will be elected when member terms expire, if not petitions for recall elections.  The public at large explicitly trusts board members to ensure safe and secure schools.

Issues of curricular instruction and extra-curricular programming, though explicit, ignite very selective groups of the public and seldom the public at-large.  Offending the football boosters will not ignite boosters of phonic-based reading or the Art Club.  Yet almost every school activity, curricular and extra-curricular, has a support group that explicitly trusts the board to be positive in its actions affecting their interest.  The connections between moms and dads, alums, and community members wearing school colors are vital to ongoing school culture and future ballot initiatives.  No board member wants to be singled out for offending a support group to the point that the group becomes active in campaigning against school programs and initiatives.  Special interest groups throughout the school community explicitly trust board members to support their interests.

What about children?  Is there an explicit trust between board members and the children of the school district?  Yes but no.  The words “child” and “children” appear hundreds of times in state statures regarding school governance.  The education of children is at the center of the school board’s work.  Yet children are seldom vocal or present when the board does its’ work.  At best, children are explicitly referenced yet the bonds of trust are all implicit.  And children do not vote.

While no board member wants to actively and publicly deny a child or group of children their wants, board members do it all the time.  And they don’t know it when they do it.  A change in school lunch vendors and the foodstuffs they supply will be applauded by some children and despised by others.  Pizza, for example, a staple of school cafeterias changes when vendor contracts change.  Few children will speak about decisions to change brands of toilet paper, yet every child is affected. 

On a larger arena, decisions about grading scales, graduation requirements, prerequisites for course selections are discussed by the board in committee and board meetings, yet few children asked how they would vote, if they could.  Children implicitly trust board members to make positive policy decisions on their behalf.

Trust is as trust is perceived.

Trust is visible.  Board members need to be seen in the schoolhouse and at school events.  Their presence in school may seem mundane, yet their lack of presence infers no personal experience, observation, or first-hand information.  I always questioned a board member who took a strong position at a board meeting about the math curriculum yet had not observed teaching and learning.  Relying on data is okay but combining data about unacceptable student performance data combined with observations of real teaching and learning in the classroom makes a winning argument.  A board member greatly increases her perception of trustworthiness when she says, “I saw how frustrated our teachers and students are with how the publisher presents pre-Algebra.  Our current text materials are not clear and direct in scaffolding required pre-Algebra skills.”  Even though an administrator may say similar things, when a board member makes these statements, they enact their trustworthiness by not being reliant only on what they are told.

Some may say board members’ presence in the school is intrusive.  In fact, the Wisconsin Association of School Board handbook for board members downplays board member visits during the school day.  “Trust the school administration”, the WASB advises.  Board presence during the school day is not a distrust but partnership between the superintendent and the board.  A secure superintendent invites board members to visit school; an insecure administrator does not. 

Trust is vocalized.  When a person meets a board member in an aisle at the grocery store or at the gas pump, and asks a school-based question, board members are given a prime-time opportunity to display and build trust.  “I am open to listening to you.  And I am open to telling you what I think.”  The rules of confidentiality always apply, but outside of forbidden topics, talking with others when they want to talk with with a board member builds mutual trust.

Perception is reality.

Lastly, newly elected board members are expected to go through an acclimation phase.  However, from day one of their term to their last day, the public is always watching.  Board members are constantly measured by how others perceive their work.  While we expect new members to learn, the perception of how new members go about their learning, and how they become fully engaged builds the reality of how much they are trusted.

Be trustworthy to be trusted.