“Clarity precedes competence.”

The title quote is from DuFour, DuFour, Eaker (Solution Tree 2014, p. 90), and nowhere may it ring more true than the school improvement process.

Each school in our district has a School Success Team (SST). It is a formal group of teachers that meet regularly with the principal to help lead the school improvement process. In turn, those SST members meet regularly with smaller teacher teams. Throughout the process, the School Improvement Plan is drafted, implemented, evaluated, and amended, if need be. As we enter our fourth week of school, SSTs are working to bring their respective school improvement goals "to life." But what does all of that really mean, especially for the teacher who is not at that meeting? We need “clarity” before we can be “competent.”

In Michigan, every public school must draft and submit an SIP to the Michigan Department of Education. It encompasses requirements for both state and federal mandates. In addition, each district also submits a District Improvement Plan. The SIP is intended to be an ongoing, continuous cycle:

Michigan Department of Education (http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-28753_38959---,00.html)

The SIP is done in a three-year cycle, but an updated version is submitted to the state each June, for the following school year. The SIP is typically drafted by the SST and principal, but some schools also bring other teachers into the drafting process.  Goals for improvement are articulated (e.g., all students will be proficient in writing), and a measurable objective is stated (e.g., 70% of the bottom 30% will demonstrate proficiency in writing in ELA by June 2015, as measured by pre-assessment and post-assessment). The measurable objective is formulated by past performance on state benchmark assessments and the bar all schools must meet by 2022. Then, one or more strategies are chosen to achieve the goal (e.g., use of clear learning goals and monitoring progress), as well as activities within each strategy (e.g., teachers will learn how to draft clear learning goals and how to effectively monitor them). Each strategy is research-based.

The number of goals per school varies, but is generally determined by the SST, principal, and other teachers brought into the process. However, all Title I schools must have a goal in each of the four core content areas. In addition, some schools have chosen to have a goal in each grade level or department. Every school must post a copy of its SIP on either its own website or the district website.

Regardless of the number of goals, the structure is based on the premise of collective responsibility: “A shared belief that the primary responsibility of each member of the organization is to ensure high levels of learning for every child” (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2012, p.15).  Within the smaller teacher teams, usually based on grade level or content area, the teachers work collaboratively and assume collective responsibility to ensure that every student learns the essential knowledge and skills for that grade or course. The Instructional Framework, now in its second year of implementation, is the vehicle through which so much of this work is done. Domains 2 and 4 (intentional planning and collaboration) help bring Domain 1 to life. That type of work can only be done by those smaller teacher teams (often formed as professional learning communities), for some very good reasons:

·         The teachers are highly trained and credentialed in their subject.

·         The teachers know the content best.

·         The teachers, through creation, administration, and scoring of common formative assessments, have the freshest assessment data.

·         The teachers know their students best.

(Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2012, p.33)

In other words, even if there is not a goal explicitly written for every content area or grade level, there are strategies and activities within each goal that pertain to all teachers, and every teacher is implementing the Instructional Framework.

As the school year progresses, collaborative teacher teams and the SST will review data to monitor progress toward the school improvement goals. The data is best gathered through the use of common formative assessments (also part of the Instructional Framework), so that there can be a change in strategy is needed, and thus, a chance to improve, for both students and teachers. In addition, a school may decide to amend its SIP within the school year, to clarify goals, strategies, and/or activities to better serve students.

So, to hopefully bring some clarity to the process, school improvement is not a one-time event, or even a weekly meeting. It is an ongoing process that lives every day, in every classroom. It is also our commitment to measure success by results, not intentions. Go back and look at the center of the cycle graphic: student achievement. School improvement is about every student, and making decisions that are best for them, to help each one of them learn at high levels.

Take That, Reverse It

I've always loved Gene Wilder's depiction of Willy Wonka, and quoting him for the title of this blog post about backward design is perfect. Based on the work of Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, and sliding in pieces from Marzano's Cognitive System, Marzano's Assessment Strategies, and the Michigan Assessment Consortium, we have developed an Assessment-Curriculum-Instruction Blueprint to assist teachers with their collaborative, intentional planning of units. It takes the model of teaching first, drafting the assessment last and reversing it.

The Blueprint itself is a 6 hour professional learning session that will be offered later this fall for State Continuing Education Clock Hours, but this blog post will serve as a birds-eye view of the process. As we move into Domains 2 and 4 of Marzano’s Instructional Framework (“The Art and Science of Teaching”), the intentionality and collaborative work are key. Thus, assume all pieces are done in a collaborative setting. The first step is stating the purpose of the end-of-unit common assessment. Teachers ask themselves two questions – why are we creating the assessment, and what is the desired outcome? This is closely related to the second step – stating each Standard/Strand from the curriculum that will be the subject of the assessment. Depending on the content area, those standards may be from the Michigan HSCEs or GLCEs, the CCSS as adopted by Michigan, AP/College Board, unique FHPS curriculum, or other nationally-recognized standards.

Those first two steps usually do not take too much time.  Step three is where the rubber meets the road – looking at rigor.  Using Marzano’s Cognitive System, teachers take time to reflect upon what level of rigor is best suited for students to demonstrate proficiency in the identified Standards/Strands. Within the Blueprint, teachers are asked to attach one or more rigor types of each of the identified Standards/Strands. Marzano’s Cognitive System has four levels:

1) Knowledge Retrieval – recalling information from permanent memory; students are merely calling up facts, sequences, or processes exactly as they have been stored.

2) Comprehension – identifying what is important to remember and placing it into appropriate categories; students use synthesis to identify the most important parts of concepts and delete any that are insignificant or extraneous.

3) Analysis – engaging students to use what they know to create new insights and invent ways of using what they have learned in new situations.

4) Knowledge Utilization – using the highest level of cognitive processes, examples include weighing options to determine the most appropriate course of action, experimental inquiry, and problem-solving when an obstacle is encountered.

Building upon that work, teachers then move to step four and begin selecting or drafting assessment items. As the process unfolds, teachers reflect upon whether the types of items and number of items comprise a balanced assessment. In addition, teachers contemplate whether there is enough rigor and depth, given that the rigor levels possible for each assessment type are dependent on the content of the item itself:

1) Selected Response (Multiple Choice, True/False, Matching) -- the rigor is equivalent to Knowledge Retrieval, and samples students’ mastery of knowledge elements.

      2) Constructed Response (Diagram, Fill in Blank, Short Answer, Web, Concept Map, Flowchart, Graph, Table, Matrix, Illustration) -- the rigor is equivalent to Knowledge Retrieval or Comprehension, dependent on content, and samples students’ mastery of knowledge elements and suggests understanding of relationships; brief descriptions of simple problem solutions provide a window, albeit it shallow, into reasoning proficiency.

    

      3) Extended Constructed Response (Essay, Research Report, Lab Report) -- the rigor is equivalent to Knowledge Retrieval, Comprehension, Analysis, or Knowledge Utilization, dependent on content, and taps students’ understanding of relationships among elements of knowledge; longer descriptions of complex problem solutions may provide a deeper window into reasoning proficiency.

     

     4)  Performance (Presentation, Movement, Science Lab, Athletic Skill, Dramatization, Enactment, Project, Debate, Model, Exhibition, Performance Task, Portfolio) -- the rigor is equivalent to Knowledge Retrieval, Comprehension, Analysis, or Knowledge Utilization, dependent on content, and infers students’ reasoning proficiency from direct observation; evaluates skills as they are being performed; assesses both proficiency in carrying out steps in product development as well as attributes of product itself.

     5)  Observations/Conversations (Oral Questioning, Observation, Interview, Conference, Process Description, Checklist, Rating Scale, Journal Sharing, Thinking Aloud A Process, Student Self-Assessment, Peer Review) -- the rigor is equivalent to Knowledge Retrieval, Comprehension, Analysis, or Knowledge Utilization, dependent on content, and explores students’ mastery selectively but in depth; infers reasoning proficiency more deeply by asking students to think aloud ot through focused, follow-up questions; assesses skill in oral communication directly; probes knowledge of procedures and attributes of quality but not product quality itself.

Again, step threes and fours require substantial intentional planning and thought by teachers, but it is being done in a collaborative setting. It also reveals whether there is a “stretch” in the assessment to challenge students, whether every item on the assessment is tied to an identified Standard/Strand, and whether the numerical value of the item in the assessment is a weight that aligns to the rigor. In addition, teachers collaboratively build a rubric to score the assessment.

Now that the assessment is built, teachers move to planning their instruction with the Instructional Framework. The first move is within DQ1 – Communicating Learning Goals and Feedback – all three elements. As teachers then move through DQs 2-9, reflections include how and when the content represented in the assessment will be taught to ensure learning for all students, determining resources that will be needed, deciding methods and strategies to engage all learners, and what common formative assessments might be employed along the way. 

Once the assessment is administered and collaboratively scored, what to do with the data? The Blueprint suggests five beginning questions: 1) what did you notice in the data? 2) what surprised you in the data? 3) what feels good to see and is affirming? 4) is there anything that raised questions for you? 5) what do you need or want to know more about? If teams request it, an instructional coach will be present to help process the data analysis.

The data generated also has to be shared and acted upon. How will results be shared with students and parents? In what form and for what purpose? Are there any other stakeholders that should be given the data? Then, how and when will the collaborative teachers address students that did not demonstrate proficiency on the essential learning embodied in the Standards/Strands? How and when will the collaborative teachers address students who demonstrated advanced proficiency? These are collective group decisions to be made with the professional learning community context.

Finally, there is a last column on the Blueprint that is for personal reflection. It asks teachers to contemplate what they might do differently the next time in creating the assessment, planning the instruction, and teaching the content to improve student learning. Not only does this help out students, but it aids our own professional growth.

Whew.  It's a lot, we know. But we're here to work and learn right along with you. As indicated, a 6 hour session will be offered later this fall to learn more about the Blueprint and hands-on practice in a collaborative setting. If you have any comments in the interim, please post them below.

J. Walton

#Transformed

I had every intention of writing the next blog post about backward design. But a funny thing happened on the way to the keyboard...

Two different professional learning opportunities were experienced by me, and truly transformed not only me but everyone around me who were there. Merely writing about them seems too one-dimensional, so I've decided to use the tweets I sent out to best describe them in "real time."

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 12

Going to be a #wildlyexciting day with #marzano

Dr. Robert Marzano was the speaker on day 2 of Grand Valley State University's "Wildly Exciting" education conference. Even as this was tweeted, I wasn't too sure what to expect. But very quickly, the whole ballroom learned that Dr. Marzano is funny, engaging, disarming, and practical. Moreover, he is decidedly pro-teacher.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 12

"If you're not bringing your self into the classroom you're not being fair to your students." #marzano #connect

As Dr. Marzano walked the conferees through the Instructional Framework, he stressed the "art" of teaching. In Michigan, unfortunately, the state-mandated evaluation process leads some teachers to believe that teaching has become all about the "science" of measuring student growth. Dr. Marzano was emphatic that his model is far more about developing teachers and helping them grow, which in turn will lead to higher student achievement. As our district moves into intentional planning and collaboration this year (Domains 2 and 4) as means to bring Domain 1 to life, this was a great message to hear.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 12

My aha moment - teacher candidates should ask interviewers how their school will help candidate grow and develop #marzano

This was in response to Dr. Marzano speaking about the need to grow teachers' capacity as professionals, and the collective responsibility we share as a profession. As a young lawyer, I had a great mentor who reviewed all my files with me on a weekly basis, looked over any court pleadings before I filed them, and went to court with me on occasion. It wasn't because he didn't trust me, but rather, he believed that he and everyone else at our firm had a professional responsibility to and for me. And this was in a profession where we had billable hour requirements that none of these activities would qualify for, so it meant "extra" work for both of us. Even though I have not actively practiced law in thirteen years, and this experience was in the early 1990s, my mentor is still a trusted friend.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 12

"Assess more, test less" Dr. Bob #Marzano

Let's stick with the legal business for one more moment. There's a Latin saying in the law, "res ipsa loquitur" - the thing speaks for itself. We'll just leave it at that.

As our day concluded, many conferees were asking Dr. Marzano to sign books or take pictures.  Here is one of him with our rock stars, Michelle Becker and Margie Fellinger:

As if that weren't enough, the following 3 days were spent with Becky and Rick DuFour and the amazing team from Solution Tree at a PLC at Work Institute.  Approximately one thousand attendees gathered, and from FHPS we were represented by all of our principals, a teacher rep from each school, and 5 members of the Instruction Office.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

Aligning what we say with what we do every day in our schools #atplc

This is the bedrock of building the collaborative culture of a professional learning community.  Becky DuFour was clear that it is a balance of strong administrative leadership and teacher empowerment. In fact, it perfectly aligns with Dr. Marzano's work around "defined autonomy" - the freedom to act and lead within clearly articulated boundaries.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

A great team has a palpable sense of "we" #atplc

The DuFours define "team" as a "group of people working interdependently to achieve a common goal for which members are mutually accountable."  Not only does everyone need to be in the boat, pulling their oar in the same direction, but they must also be sitting in the right seat that takes advantage of the strengths they bring to the team.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

Only teachers have the power to ensure delivery of a guaranteed and viable curriculum #atplc

This is why teachers must be provided with time and space to collaborate or "co-labor". In fact, within the PLC model, the DuFours speak of collaboration as a "systematic process in which we work together interdependently to analyze and impact professional practice in order to improve our individual and collective results." Within that process, the team continually asks themselves the four critical questions, based on the belief that all kids can learn: 1) What is it we expect them to learn? 2) How will we know when they have learned it? 3) How will we respond when they don't learn? 4) How will we respond when they already know it?

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

Collaboration by invitation won't work #atplc

No one gets to opt out of the team process; smaller groups of people are a "seductive shortcut" that undermines the PLC process. This needs to be remembered this year as we bring Domains 2 and 4 forward.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

Why before how #atplc

Before we can focus on "how" we will collaborate, we need to make sure we know "why" we are collaborating. Our fundamental purpose is to help all kids learn at high levels, and if we don't, there are serious implications. We must prepare kids for their future, not our past. Kids who don't learn how to learn will not succeed in our country's economy, nor have access to the American dream. We must own that our current system is not firing on all cylinders, and we will continue to fall behind the rest of the world in critical areas.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

"There's no spot on our journey called 'good enough'." Marc Johnson #atplc

Marc is the superintendent of Sanger Unified School District in the San Joaquin Valley in California. The district has ten thousand plus students, with large groups of second language learners, children from poverty, and minorities. Ten years ago, Sanger was listed as a Program Initiative District due to low performance in the ELL group.  By 2006, it exited its status because of continued student achievement in the ELL group and all groups, and continues to grow student achievement through the PLC process. PLCs are not a weekly meeting or a one-time event; they are an ongoing process that never ends.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

"When you take away the work, you take away the learning." Tim Kanold #atplc

Tim was the past director of math and science at Adlai E. Stevenson High School, where he taught for many years. This quote was in response to an audience question about his experience as a teacher in the PLC process. Tim acknowledged that the work is hard, but if we believe that all kids can learn, it is the necessary work to help teachers grow and learn so that they can best serve all kids. In other words, leaders who try to take this work away from teachers, ostensibly to "help" them, actually harm teachers.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 14

"Every person who enters the field of education has both an opportunity and an obligation to be a leader." Rick #DuFour #atplc

Rick's keynote address -- "Leaders Wanted" -- began our second day of learning. I was so engrossed in this presentation (and a later one in the afternoon), I tweeted only twice that day. This first tweet was based on Rick's belief that school leadership is not only open to everyone, it is the professional responsibility of everyone. Leadership cannot be based on a hierarchical position because no single person has all the expertise, skill, or energy to do it all. Obviously, there are levels of leadership within a school district: "1) a central office team that speaks with one voice; 2) principals who distribute shared leadership through a guiding coalition and opportunities for teacher leadership; and 3) teachers who work in collaborative teams that demonstrate situational leadership and take collective responsibility for student learning."

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 14

"Let's remove the phrase 'I'm just a teacher' from our profession." Rick #DuFour #atplc

This statement received a loud ovation from the audience. As Rick elaborated, any obstacles encountered on the way to achieving the fundamental purpose of a school (all kids learning at high levels) via PLCs need solutions proposed and championed by teachers, and those teachers need to be provided resources and support for success from principals. The non-negotiable is student learning.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 15

Working in collaborative teams to focus on learning is NOT a new "plate." It's the dishwasher to pull all plates in & clean them up. #atplc

Day 3 was a half-day, and the keynote was at the conclusion. I spent the first part of the morning with Tim Brown in a session entitled, "From Forming to Performing: What Does a Leadership Team Need to Know and Do?" There were so many great take-aways, but one of them was that a PLC is not another "initiative." As Tim rhetorically posed, "why or how is a focus on learning an 'initiative'? Why or how is working collaboratively an 'initiative'?" One of the slides in the learning materials contains a quote from Becky DuFour as to what a PLC is: "An ongoing process, in which educators work collaboratively, in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action research, to achieve better results for the students they serve."

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 15

If we embrace that all students will succeed, learning must be a guarantee, not an invitation. #atplc #AnthonyMuhammad #paradigmshift

Our learning was brought to a rousing conclusion when everyone gathered together to listen to Anthony Muhammad, who was a teacher and principal in Michigan. As Jon Gregory later said to me, "I could have listened to him all day!" We have to embrace high levels of learning for all students as the reason our school exists, and as the non-negotiable responsibility of every single teacher within our school.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 15

True PLCs mean we give up the rhetoric of equality & actually all do the work together to guarantee all kids learn. #atplc #AnthonyMuhammad

Finally, no more excuses. Every student must be validated and affirmed, no matter the unique cultural norms each student comes in with.  As Dr. Muhammad writes in his book, The Will to Lead, the Skill to Teach, "respect and affirmation lead to achievement." Instead of trying to assimilate students into our antiquated, dominant culture of control, manipulation, standardization, and control that we were schooled in, we need to educate students in a new culture of liberation, development, creativity, and empowerment.


Thanks for reading, and please share your thoughts in the comment section. Excited to begin a new school year #transformed.

MythBusters: Intentional Planning

I wish I could say that this blog entry will be packed with the kind of science entertainment that you would see on Discovery Channel's "MythBusters." Alas, I am neither as talented nor as bright as Jamie and Adam. But, if you want to know more about Domain 2 of Dr. Robert Marzano's Instructional Framework (and let's be honest -- who doesn't?), read on.

As we enter year two of our three-year implementation of the Instructional Framework, the focus is on intentional planning.* Domain 2 poses the tenth and final design question: "What will I do to develop effective lessons organized into a cohesive unit?" Simply put, intentional planning is the "what, how, when, and why" that good teachers do to support student learning. Relying upon the research of Marzano and others, Bryan Goodwin writes in his book Simply Better: Doing What Matters Most To Change The Odds For Student Success (ASCD 2011) that intentional planning requires teachers to pose questions to themselves, such as: "Why am I giving a pop quiz? What am I hoping to learn about my students? Why am I breaking students into small groups? What am I hoping students will learn? Why am I giving a particular writing prompt? What am I hoping to have students demonstrate?" When we begin to be intentional in all that we do, we become more effective teachers and our students benefit.

To help us dip our collective toe into the water of intentional planning before the school year begins, on with the myth-busting:

Myth: It sounds great, but with everything else I have to do there is no time for intentional planning.
Reality: It does take time. But instead of viewing it as "more" time, think of it as "repurposed" time. Reflect upon how much time you currently spend planning, and repurpose that into intentional planning. Even if intentional planning results in additional time as you begin, your time will be more effectively and efficiently used.

Myth: I already intentionally plan -- take a look at my planner. I am being asked to start all over.
Reality: No. Just like you don't teach the same lessons in exactly the same way year in and year out, intentional planning helps you take what you already have and adjust it for the unique, new learners you have in front of you each day. Take what you already have -- it's a great start -- and look at it with the "what-how-when-why" mindset. Keep all that you can, tweak what must change, and create what you still need.

Myth: I can't do it alone.
Reality: You could, but you shouldn't. Intentional planing is best done through collaboration. What colleague(s) do you share a common planning period with? How might an instructional coach be of assistance? How might the instructional leaders in your school (e.g., principal, assistant principal, department chair, etc.) be of assistance? You don't have to go it alone.

Myth: I was just getting the hang of Domain 1. Moving to Domain 2 will confuse me and my students.
Reality: Domains 1 and 2 are interdependent. If you look at the eight (yes, eight -- not forty-one) elements of Domain 2, you will see that they infuse Domain 1. As an example, the first step of any intentional unit plan is to identify your learning goals for the unit, which relates to Domain 1, Element 1 (provide rigorous learning goals) and Domain 2, Element 44 (attention to established content standards). For a more in-depth look, read Chapter 10 of The Art and Science of Teaching (ASCD 2007), where Marzano provides examples of how Domains 1 and 2 seamlessly interact.


Remember, everyone is on this learning journey -- district staff, principals, teachers, and students. Not one of us is an expert, but collectively we will achieve our goal: all learners achieving individual potential.


J. Walton


*Intentional planning also supports the backward design process promoted by Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins (also embedded within Marzano's Instructional Framework), and that process will be the subject of the next blog entry.

What Do You Do?

Whenever I meet someone new and they ask what I do for a living, I typically respond, "I'm a high school teacher currently working as an instructional coach." Even for people in education, this doesn't really answer their question. The position of instructional coach is relatively new in the field, and differs greatly depending on the district. So, in addition to a weird look, the next question is usually, "okay, but what do you do?" And, the emphasis is often on a different word, depending on the person. Actually, many in our own district are often fuzzy on "what we do."

What Do You Do?
The "what" usually depends on the day, for me and my fellow six coaches. In addition to the more traditional one-on-one, confidential coaching with teachers, we also group coach professional learning communities (PLCs) and other teacher teams. Alongside teachers, we develop curriculum for Spanish Immersion, Chinese Immersion, our Gifted & Talented program, and K-12 Common Core alignment. We work with principals, teachers, and paraprofessionals on initiatives such as Strategic Teaching to Accelerate Reading Success (STARS), Response to Instruction (RtI), and the FHPS Literacy Framework. We work directly with students on literacy and environmental programs. We engage in professional learning with teachers in areas such as the Instructional Framework, consensus mapping, and collaborative learning labs (CLLs). We also provide ongoing support to our principals and Schools Success Teams (SSTs) in the critical work of school improvement.

What Do You Do?
The emphasis on the first "do" always reminds me of the 1982 Adam Ant "Goody Two Shoes" song: "Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?" Any time a teacher is not actively engaged with kids on a daily basis, some people are suspect of them. As coaches, we certainly work differently than we did as classroom teachers. Some of our colleagues even refer to us now as "them," since we are housed at the Administration Building. This saddens me. First, because we are all on the same team - the team that is working hard every single day to do what is best for kids.  Second, because we still think of ourselves as teachers. Personally, if I ever stop thinking of myself as a teacher, it is time to quit.

What Do You Do?
For me, the best day is one that I am in one our high schools, interacting with kids and teachers. Any time I am blessed with an invitation to co-teach or otherwise engage with kids, I leap at the opportunity. That is the one downside to being a teacher who is an instructional coach - no regular classes of kids to teach and learn with. Generally speaking, my job is to support our high school teachers and administrators in any way that I can. When I was hired, the primary focus was on school improvement, but it has grown over the last 17 months. I continue to work with SSTs, but I now also coordinate our Advanced Placement (AP) program. We have an extraordinary cadre of teachers who offer courses in 24 different AP subjects, providing our kids with an opportunity to earn college credits.  I've also become involved with our ELA and math teachers as we engage in the important work of redesigning our curriculum in light of Michigan's adoption of the Common Core State Standards. I hope to continue facilitating CLLs and gaining new insights alongside our teachers. Finally, I am also shepherding long-term projects for both testing-out exams and backward design/common assessments.

What Do You Do?
I love what I "do." Since switching professions 12 years ago, I have never once dreaded going to school or the Instruction Office. How lucky I am that I get to live out my passion every single day. There are plenty of times I feel frustrated or even angry, but it does not diminish the love I have for teaching and learning. What do I do? I try to make a positive difference in the lives of kids, and I go to bed every night hoping I did so.