There are several lessons to be learned from the brouhaha at last week’s Lyle school board meeting, lessons which would be an excellent case study for any civics class interested in how to make a representative democracy work — or, in Lyle’s case, not work.

The first lesson is that civil disobedience may have a place, but is not the most effective mechanism for change. Lyle residents who are unhappy with the school’s leadership can, if they are a majority, accomplish change at the ballot box. That’s how the American system is built to work, and still works quite well at the local level. Pushing the limits by refusing to leave a meeting simply serves to cement already-entrenched positions and reduces protesters’ credibility. If all that energy was poured into identifying and campaigning for candidates for the next election, much more might be accomplished.

The second lesson is that people want their opinions to be heard, and any public body that adopts policies designed to limit public comment — as the Lyle school board’s policies do — is going to spark anger and frustration. The board’s rules on public comment at meetings make sense to nobody, and the board could have adopted a more moderate stance. By choosing not to do so, the school’s leadership gives the appearance of fearing what might be said —which, of course, just fuels the fire.

Finally, the overarching lesson is that there is a place for moderation and for civil debate. It is still not too late for everyone involved in the Lyle school battles to step back, lower their voice and consider how to reasonably accomplish their goals.

It does not help that the national political scene sets a terrible example for civil debate. But it does provide an example of just how not to go about getting anything done. Lyle residents and elected board members would do well to work within the system, encourage open discussion and listen to each other. That would be the best lesson of all.