I know I'm stealing this from someone (NPR?) But seeing as my brain hasn't been functioning on all cylinders lately, I can't remember who I'm stealing it from. Someone help me out so I can be copyright friendly. LOL
THIS WEEK IN NUMBERS:
2: average number of extra traffic light cycles I had to wait through because some jerk in front of me is playing on his/her phone at the stoplight.
10: kindergartner names I forgot.
20: times I sang the tune "Skip to my Lou" with modified alphabet lyrics.
5: average number of kids I sent to the end of the line in every class for talking when they lined up.
400: number of dollars I was able to put into savings on payday because of my newly increased paycheck.
6: pairs of poopy underwear changed and cleaned up.
200: miles I drove to get my hair done.
7: Christmas presents purchased.
4: strings of lights on the outside of the house.
3: the number of times I made it to the gym.
too many to count: kisses and raspberries from my son. =)
Friday, December 2, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
New job!
So three weeks ago, I call my district supervisor and ask him if there will be any spare elementary classes to pad my FTE (contract, for my non-teacher friends). He says "I'll know at the end of the week." That Friday, he sends an email to every music teacher in the district saying that it will be a .62 Itinerant (traveling) elementary position (way more than we thought it would be).
That's twice the amount of money I make now (and it includes benefits I don't qualify for now). And we've been a little behind in bills because we had to replace the Jeep back in August. So I tell him I'm interested. After a "just for appearances" interview (as often happens in my district...something I'm not a fan of, but at least this time it worked in my favor), he offered and I accepted the job. It's 9 classes at 5 schools. 6 of those are kindergarten, so the lesson planning isn't crazy. It's kind of a "picking up all the loose ends" job. Immediately, I made a grid with all the different schools, principals' name, phone number, secretaries' names, copy codes, regular teachers' names for my classes, and dividers for each school in a notebook.
Yes I'm neurotic.
But after only two weeks that organization has already paid off a few times, so judge me all you want. I've committed to this and I'm gonna do it right.
Despite the insanity of that, all the elementary schools in my district have early release every Wednesday. So to keep my schedule a little more manageable, I don't have any classes on Wednesday. I DON'T WORK ON WEDNESDAYS. And I'm making twice as much money. And all I have to do is travel between schools? Um, OKAY.
But now here's my problem. If we still lived in Battle Ground, I could keep Sam at his current daycare because it would be on the way. But coming from the south, I'm backtracking an average of 20 miles a day. That's 80 extra miles a week that I'm driving...ugh. I hate Hate HATE searching for daycare. Especially when I really like where he's at otherwise.
That's twice the amount of money I make now (and it includes benefits I don't qualify for now). And we've been a little behind in bills because we had to replace the Jeep back in August. So I tell him I'm interested. After a "just for appearances" interview (as often happens in my district...something I'm not a fan of, but at least this time it worked in my favor), he offered and I accepted the job. It's 9 classes at 5 schools. 6 of those are kindergarten, so the lesson planning isn't crazy. It's kind of a "picking up all the loose ends" job. Immediately, I made a grid with all the different schools, principals' name, phone number, secretaries' names, copy codes, regular teachers' names for my classes, and dividers for each school in a notebook.
Yes I'm neurotic.
But after only two weeks that organization has already paid off a few times, so judge me all you want. I've committed to this and I'm gonna do it right.
Despite the insanity of that, all the elementary schools in my district have early release every Wednesday. So to keep my schedule a little more manageable, I don't have any classes on Wednesday. I DON'T WORK ON WEDNESDAYS. And I'm making twice as much money. And all I have to do is travel between schools? Um, OKAY.
But now here's my problem. If we still lived in Battle Ground, I could keep Sam at his current daycare because it would be on the way. But coming from the south, I'm backtracking an average of 20 miles a day. That's 80 extra miles a week that I'm driving...ugh. I hate Hate HATE searching for daycare. Especially when I really like where he's at otherwise.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Am I missing something?
Help me work out this series of logic statements:
Americans hold something like 95% of the world's patents.
One would assume that means we think differently than each other, and that our culture celebrates and promotes that, and that our educational system does not stifle individuality.
Yet our traditional music programs generally focus on Western European and American art forms, and use almost exclusively traditional ensemble classes at the secondary level. There has been some movement, mostly in places where it has been necessary to save a full time teaching job, towards secondary general music (piano and guitar labs, and sometimes alternate ensembles such as marimba, steel drums, or mariachi). But these are the exceptions, and certainly there seems to be very little professional reward for offering these classes or even doing well teaching them (anyone's piano lab students been invited to a conference yet? No trophies for steel drum groups!).
We can see that sometimes we are only valued by administrators when we reach large numbers of students. An attrition rate of 2-3% between 6th and 12th grades is viewed as a success by our colleagues, but an administrator looking at ways to save money sees only that there IS ATTRITION, and no new students being recruited and added between those grades.
So as we struggle to remain relevant in the school system, somehow we seem to believe that testing traditional Western European musical skills will a) draw more students b) prove that we are doing our jobs c) make us a "legitimate" academic subject in the eyes of building colleagues and supervisors.
It doesn't seem to be working yet. At least not where I live. What I see is music teachers striving to preserve their "programs" instead of working on ways to teach music to the entire student body. It will be our downfall.
Americans hold something like 95% of the world's patents.
One would assume that means we think differently than each other, and that our culture celebrates and promotes that, and that our educational system does not stifle individuality.
Yet our traditional music programs generally focus on Western European and American art forms, and use almost exclusively traditional ensemble classes at the secondary level. There has been some movement, mostly in places where it has been necessary to save a full time teaching job, towards secondary general music (piano and guitar labs, and sometimes alternate ensembles such as marimba, steel drums, or mariachi). But these are the exceptions, and certainly there seems to be very little professional reward for offering these classes or even doing well teaching them (anyone's piano lab students been invited to a conference yet? No trophies for steel drum groups!).
We can see that sometimes we are only valued by administrators when we reach large numbers of students. An attrition rate of 2-3% between 6th and 12th grades is viewed as a success by our colleagues, but an administrator looking at ways to save money sees only that there IS ATTRITION, and no new students being recruited and added between those grades.
So as we struggle to remain relevant in the school system, somehow we seem to believe that testing traditional Western European musical skills will a) draw more students b) prove that we are doing our jobs c) make us a "legitimate" academic subject in the eyes of building colleagues and supervisors.
It doesn't seem to be working yet. At least not where I live. What I see is music teachers striving to preserve their "programs" instead of working on ways to teach music to the entire student body. It will be our downfall.
Friday, July 1, 2011
This week in numbers
810 miles driven
3 1/2 tanks of gas
11 Cascade range peaks viewed
10 mountain passes driven
1 bike rental
1 outdoor concert
5 toddler meltdowns
1 donated baseball
2 sunburns
8 BILLION mosquitos (all at Collier State Park)
25 hitch-hikers passed
6 hitch-hikers with guitars
1 toddler size life-jacket purchased
1 goner basil plant
1.05 inches of rain in CALIFORNIA (in one day)
30+ diapers used
2 glasses of wine
4 new plastic squirt guns
(pictures coming soon) =)
3 1/2 tanks of gas
11 Cascade range peaks viewed
10 mountain passes driven
1 bike rental
1 outdoor concert
5 toddler meltdowns
1 donated baseball
2 sunburns
8 BILLION mosquitos (all at Collier State Park)
25 hitch-hikers passed
6 hitch-hikers with guitars
1 toddler size life-jacket purchased
1 goner basil plant
1.05 inches of rain in CALIFORNIA (in one day)
30+ diapers used
2 glasses of wine
4 new plastic squirt guns
(pictures coming soon) =)
Thursday, May 26, 2011
All moved in!
Everything is finally unpacked, except for one box of Tyson's that I'M NOT TOUCHING (because like I tell my students "I ain't yo momma, and I don't clean up after you").
Sidenote: I think he leaves stuff out sometimes because he knows it will make me crazy and I'll put it away for him....but maybe not because I often put things away and forget to tell him where I put it...ah the joys of being married.
It's amazing how well our stuff fit and looks in this house. Everything we put away, it was like "wow...that was meant to be there." If we'd had any more furniture than we did, it wouldn't have fit. If we'd rented a bigger house, it would look weird and empty. This house is just the right size.
AND THE WALLS AREN'T WHITE!! WAHOO!! Our stuff matches the walls well (especially considering we didn't intend or purchase anything specially to match). I suppose it helps that our landlord isn't color blind---she put decent colors on the walls. Which leads me to reflect on my previous rental experiences:
My first apartment had many problems (including ants, mold, and a leaky roof), but a quirky feature was the hideous yellow bath fixtures. In fact, every unit in the building had a different FUN color! Like Pepto Bismol pink. Candy mint green. Ew. But the master bedroom window faced full west with an amazing view of the Olympic mountains. And the location was pretty awesome, too.
My second apartment was much nicer, but it was a daylight basement apartment with windows facing the entrance to the parking lot. Which meant every resident walking to their car would walk past my window. Kind of creepy for a single woman. But it was also a sweet location, and it had a pool. Nice for a first year teacher with no life.
Our apartment in Chicago was an unknown until we pulled into the alley with our moving truck. I had seen pictures online and it looked ok, but we had a contingency plan to drive right back out of Chicago to a campground and search the next day if the apartment was no good. Turns out the apartment was fine, and as a bonus, we were three blocks from a beach on Lake Michigan. Very handy in the summer.
(view from the rooftop patio looking southeast)
Sidenote: I think he leaves stuff out sometimes because he knows it will make me crazy and I'll put it away for him....but maybe not because I often put things away and forget to tell him where I put it...ah the joys of being married.
It's amazing how well our stuff fit and looks in this house. Everything we put away, it was like "wow...that was meant to be there." If we'd had any more furniture than we did, it wouldn't have fit. If we'd rented a bigger house, it would look weird and empty. This house is just the right size.
AND THE WALLS AREN'T WHITE!! WAHOO!! Our stuff matches the walls well (especially considering we didn't intend or purchase anything specially to match). I suppose it helps that our landlord isn't color blind---she put decent colors on the walls. Which leads me to reflect on my previous rental experiences:
My first apartment had many problems (including ants, mold, and a leaky roof), but a quirky feature was the hideous yellow bath fixtures. In fact, every unit in the building had a different FUN color! Like Pepto Bismol pink. Candy mint green. Ew. But the master bedroom window faced full west with an amazing view of the Olympic mountains. And the location was pretty awesome, too.
My second apartment was much nicer, but it was a daylight basement apartment with windows facing the entrance to the parking lot. Which meant every resident walking to their car would walk past my window. Kind of creepy for a single woman. But it was also a sweet location, and it had a pool. Nice for a first year teacher with no life.
Our apartment in Chicago was an unknown until we pulled into the alley with our moving truck. I had seen pictures online and it looked ok, but we had a contingency plan to drive right back out of Chicago to a campground and search the next day if the apartment was no good. Turns out the apartment was fine, and as a bonus, we were three blocks from a beach on Lake Michigan. Very handy in the summer.
(view from the rooftop patio looking southeast)
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Triathlon training
So I had this brilliant idea that I should sign up for a triathlon. No, I don't remember why I decided to do this. I think at the time it sounded like fun. Now, 4 weeks away, I'm wondering what exactly I have gotten myself into. Don't get me wrong, I'm gonna do this, and I do think getting across that finish line is going to feel amazing....
BUT.
Today my friend Jessica and I tried out our wetsuits out in the actual lake where the race will be. The air temperature was maybe 50 degrees? And as we drove to it, we kept saying "well this is the Northwest. It's entirely possible it may be that cold on race day." And there was a BIG nasty looking cloud dropping rain RIGHT OVER the spot where we were headed. We pull into the parking lot and it starts POURING. (Well, yeah, I suppose that could happen on race day, too, right?)
And the water wasn't much warmer. We swam about half the distance we'll need to (if my estimate is correct about the distance between buoys on the map), and while I was warm enough, I was trying to imagine tying my shoes with my hands that cold....yikes.
But there was a rainbow when we left the park. That's a good sign, right?
4 weeks and counting. AUGHHHH!!!!
BUT.
Today my friend Jessica and I tried out our wetsuits out in the actual lake where the race will be. The air temperature was maybe 50 degrees? And as we drove to it, we kept saying "well this is the Northwest. It's entirely possible it may be that cold on race day." And there was a BIG nasty looking cloud dropping rain RIGHT OVER the spot where we were headed. We pull into the parking lot and it starts POURING. (Well, yeah, I suppose that could happen on race day, too, right?)
And the water wasn't much warmer. We swam about half the distance we'll need to (if my estimate is correct about the distance between buoys on the map), and while I was warm enough, I was trying to imagine tying my shoes with my hands that cold....yikes.
But there was a rainbow when we left the park. That's a good sign, right?
4 weeks and counting. AUGHHHH!!!!
Monday, April 25, 2011
An ode to our first house
Dear Battle Ground house:
We've had a lot of good memories. You were our first real home together. We thought it would last forever. But alas, there are some red flags that we ignored and forged the relationship anyway. And I'm not sad to say this relationship is over. We argued with the realtor about your location. We hated how far away everything was. So you made up for it with fantastic neighbors.
I will never forget Tyson cutting down the ivy off the fence and discovering that the fence was being HELD UP by the ivy. And we met our next door neighbor when the fence fell into his yard. When he saw it, he offered us beer. On the other side, we had master gardeners who gave us food every summer when they had too much for eating and canning. And the parents across the street whose son is exactly Sam's age who are about the nicest neighbors anyone could hope for...I'm gonna miss them a lot, too, but their house didn't treat them any better than you did us. And then there's Lloyd. Sam is going to be devastated I think. Whose driveway is he going to play in now? Every white pickup truck he sees on the road he yells, "THERE'S LLOYD!!!" Sad clown.
But you, little gray house, did nothing to help the situation. You forced our hand. You attracted a massive ant invasion 2 days before I gave birth. You grew mold on our clothes, our furniture, and leaked water through the roof on my BRAND NEW WASHING MACHINE!! You gave my firstborn eczema. I don't think I'll ever forgive you for that one.
And your popcorn ceilings. Really. Why did you ever think THAT was stylish?
I've grieved over you. I owned and buried my first dog and cat here. We started raising our first child here. And I'm done. I hate being 20 miles away from anything or anyone I want to be around. I hate being constantly sick from allergies. I can't believe how much money we blew on you. And nothing to show for it but a crappy credit score.
Believe me, I understand that it wasn't all your fault. Your previous relationship was no good either. You were abused and mistreated by the jerks who sold you to us. I can't fault you for that, I suppose, but you just weren't right for us. We knew it from the beginning and we should have let you go so the right people could have had you instead. People who could have fixed your problems. People who cared about living in this location. People who would have stayed with you for the long haul. And I'm sorry about that. I truly hope you do better next time. But I hope we do better, too.
Sincerely,
Tina, Tyson, and Sam (Cody and Oscar, RIP)
We've had a lot of good memories. You were our first real home together. We thought it would last forever. But alas, there are some red flags that we ignored and forged the relationship anyway. And I'm not sad to say this relationship is over. We argued with the realtor about your location. We hated how far away everything was. So you made up for it with fantastic neighbors.
I will never forget Tyson cutting down the ivy off the fence and discovering that the fence was being HELD UP by the ivy. And we met our next door neighbor when the fence fell into his yard. When he saw it, he offered us beer. On the other side, we had master gardeners who gave us food every summer when they had too much for eating and canning. And the parents across the street whose son is exactly Sam's age who are about the nicest neighbors anyone could hope for...I'm gonna miss them a lot, too, but their house didn't treat them any better than you did us. And then there's Lloyd. Sam is going to be devastated I think. Whose driveway is he going to play in now? Every white pickup truck he sees on the road he yells, "THERE'S LLOYD!!!" Sad clown.
But you, little gray house, did nothing to help the situation. You forced our hand. You attracted a massive ant invasion 2 days before I gave birth. You grew mold on our clothes, our furniture, and leaked water through the roof on my BRAND NEW WASHING MACHINE!! You gave my firstborn eczema. I don't think I'll ever forgive you for that one.
And your popcorn ceilings. Really. Why did you ever think THAT was stylish?
I've grieved over you. I owned and buried my first dog and cat here. We started raising our first child here. And I'm done. I hate being 20 miles away from anything or anyone I want to be around. I hate being constantly sick from allergies. I can't believe how much money we blew on you. And nothing to show for it but a crappy credit score.
Believe me, I understand that it wasn't all your fault. Your previous relationship was no good either. You were abused and mistreated by the jerks who sold you to us. I can't fault you for that, I suppose, but you just weren't right for us. We knew it from the beginning and we should have let you go so the right people could have had you instead. People who could have fixed your problems. People who cared about living in this location. People who would have stayed with you for the long haul. And I'm sorry about that. I truly hope you do better next time. But I hope we do better, too.
Sincerely,
Tina, Tyson, and Sam (Cody and Oscar, RIP)
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Truth in advertising?
In 1973, President Nixon took a look at Edgar Kaiser's for-profit hospital (the first of its kind), and decided that their business model would be a good one to support as part of a national health care policy....Today the results of that idea? It costs more than $20,000 for a non-medicated, totally natural hospital birth with a stay of 2 days. People in poverty flood emergency rooms for regular care issues because they have no money for health insurance and/or jobs that don't provide insurance and therefore cannot afford a regular doctor visit where they could be turned away. Insurance is kind of like a "voucher" for health care. In some cases, it covers the entire cost, but as many of us are aware, it hardly ever does. At the very least, we have deductibles and co-pay amounts we must pay out of pocket, not including any prescriptions we must buy...
What if education worked like that? We all get a government voucher of our own tax dollars to choose whatever school we want to send our kids to. You could choose the best schools for your kid to go to, no boundary paperwork or anything! Sounds like a great idea, right? Except just like the hospitals, the best ones will cost more than the voucher amount (because all those extra services cost money!). And those who can't pay the extra will either go somewhere else not as good or go without. (Bias alert: I happen to believe that going without is not an option for our society to continue to prosper....as going without some kinds of care has proven disastrous for our state of health in this country...)
A basic premise of advertising is that you must convince the public that they NEED your product. Usually this comes in the form of some sort of failure on the customer's part. We're not pretty enough, so we need COSMETICS. We're not healthy enough so we need VITAMINS and ORGANIC FOOD. We're not good enough parents, so we need BABY MONITORS and PARENTING BOOKS. We're not cool enough to be accepted by our peers, so we need ALCOHOL and FANCY CARS.
So in order to sell something you must first prove that the existing system is broken.
You mean like "A Nation at Risk"? You mean like NCLB? You mean like "Race to the Top"? How about blaming the teachers pensions for the lack of money to buy essential supplies like photocopy paper and books? Prove it like that? (On a side note, it REALLY bugs me that Bill Gates is at the forefront of this reform movement since he never even ATTENDED a public school. Ever. What the hell does he know about how a public school works except what other people tell him?)
And to be sure, I know not all public schools are wonderful. I worked in South Chicago. I had crack dealers in my classroom. I've seen good teachers get burned out when they are overwhelmed by the needs of so many kids, year after year, who churn through the machine with minimal progress because of circumstances outside the school. I've also seen principals with too much power pushing an agenda, politicians who think they know what's going on because "my kid went to this one public school one time...."
If the issue really is fixing the truly bad schools, why aren't we emulating the schools that DO work? And I don't mean like China, since they're trying to change their school system to look more like ours....
Why not give all schools the resources to look like New Trier High School in Winnetka, IL? Because not all schools in the US have a bunch of rich white kids and involved parents. The solution for New Trier is not going to be the solution for a school in the Bronx. Trick question: why do American kids generally do poorly on standardized tests? The answer is in the previous sentence. So why use standardized tests to prove school effectiveness?
First make people believe it's broken. Then they will want your product.
We have a really warped way of looking at poor people in this country that stems way back from our Puritan roots. They believed (as the Jewish Pharisees did before them) that people were poor because God was punishing them. Conversely, financial success was seen as God's blessing (for the record, I don't think that making money by enslaving people in 3rd world countries is really a consequence of God's "blessing") Or they were poor because of something they did to themselves. It was "their choice" to be poor. I'd like to say many of us know better, but I've caught myself..."I won't give money to this homeless person because he might spend it on drugs." How do I know that? I don't. Or we ignore the poor because it's just easier to deal with that way.
What would happen to those people already living on the edge of poverty if the only way to access good schools was to pay money out of pocket? Money they don't have?
I wish the profiteers would just be honest and say "look, we see a great business opportunity here to make money from a service that everyone uses. Education." But honesty wouldn't get them huge amounts of money and power.
In order to sell something, you must convince people they need it. Support public education. For everyone, not just the privileged class.
What if education worked like that? We all get a government voucher of our own tax dollars to choose whatever school we want to send our kids to. You could choose the best schools for your kid to go to, no boundary paperwork or anything! Sounds like a great idea, right? Except just like the hospitals, the best ones will cost more than the voucher amount (because all those extra services cost money!). And those who can't pay the extra will either go somewhere else not as good or go without. (Bias alert: I happen to believe that going without is not an option for our society to continue to prosper....as going without some kinds of care has proven disastrous for our state of health in this country...)
A basic premise of advertising is that you must convince the public that they NEED your product. Usually this comes in the form of some sort of failure on the customer's part. We're not pretty enough, so we need COSMETICS. We're not healthy enough so we need VITAMINS and ORGANIC FOOD. We're not good enough parents, so we need BABY MONITORS and PARENTING BOOKS. We're not cool enough to be accepted by our peers, so we need ALCOHOL and FANCY CARS.
So in order to sell something you must first prove that the existing system is broken.
You mean like "A Nation at Risk"? You mean like NCLB? You mean like "Race to the Top"? How about blaming the teachers pensions for the lack of money to buy essential supplies like photocopy paper and books? Prove it like that? (On a side note, it REALLY bugs me that Bill Gates is at the forefront of this reform movement since he never even ATTENDED a public school. Ever. What the hell does he know about how a public school works except what other people tell him?)
And to be sure, I know not all public schools are wonderful. I worked in South Chicago. I had crack dealers in my classroom. I've seen good teachers get burned out when they are overwhelmed by the needs of so many kids, year after year, who churn through the machine with minimal progress because of circumstances outside the school. I've also seen principals with too much power pushing an agenda, politicians who think they know what's going on because "my kid went to this one public school one time...."
If the issue really is fixing the truly bad schools, why aren't we emulating the schools that DO work? And I don't mean like China, since they're trying to change their school system to look more like ours....
Why not give all schools the resources to look like New Trier High School in Winnetka, IL? Because not all schools in the US have a bunch of rich white kids and involved parents. The solution for New Trier is not going to be the solution for a school in the Bronx. Trick question: why do American kids generally do poorly on standardized tests? The answer is in the previous sentence. So why use standardized tests to prove school effectiveness?
First make people believe it's broken. Then they will want your product.
We have a really warped way of looking at poor people in this country that stems way back from our Puritan roots. They believed (as the Jewish Pharisees did before them) that people were poor because God was punishing them. Conversely, financial success was seen as God's blessing (for the record, I don't think that making money by enslaving people in 3rd world countries is really a consequence of God's "blessing") Or they were poor because of something they did to themselves. It was "their choice" to be poor. I'd like to say many of us know better, but I've caught myself..."I won't give money to this homeless person because he might spend it on drugs." How do I know that? I don't. Or we ignore the poor because it's just easier to deal with that way.
What would happen to those people already living on the edge of poverty if the only way to access good schools was to pay money out of pocket? Money they don't have?
I wish the profiteers would just be honest and say "look, we see a great business opportunity here to make money from a service that everyone uses. Education." But honesty wouldn't get them huge amounts of money and power.
In order to sell something, you must convince people they need it. Support public education. For everyone, not just the privileged class.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
In honor of Mr. Carlisle
So my high school choir director is the king of puns. Notice I say "is" not "was." The only person I have ever found that even came close to that level of punniness was my first psych professor at Mt. Hood (make of THAT what you will....) and my mother-in-law.
So Kelly, this one is for you. =) (credit to talkbass.com for this Schickele-inspired masterpiece)
C, E-flat, and G go into a bar.
The bartender says: "Sorry, but we don't serve minors." So, the E-flat leaves, and the C and the G have an open fifth between them. After a few drinks, the fifth is diminished: the G is out flat.
An F comes in and tries to augment the situation, but is not sharp enough. A D comes into the bar and heads straight for the bathroom saying, "Excuse me, I'll just be a second."
An A comes into the bar, but the bartender is not convinced that this relative of C is not a minor. Then the bartender notices a B-flat hiding at the end of the bar and exclaims: "Get out now! You're the seventh minor I've found in this bar tonight." The E-flat, not easily deflated, comes back to the bar the next night in a 3-piece suit with nicely shined shoes.
The bartender says: "You're looking sharp tonight, come on in! This could be a major development." This proves to be the case, as the E-flat takes off the suit and stands there au natural. Eventually, the C sobers up and realizes in horror that he's under a rest. The C is brought to trial, is found guilty of contributing to the diminution of a minor, and is sentenced to 10 years of DS without Coda at an upscale correctional facility.
On appeal, however, the C is found innocent of any wrongdoing, even accidental, and that all accusations to the contrary are bassless. The bartender decides, however, that since he's only had tenor so patrons, the soprano out in the bathroom, and everything has become alto much treble, he needs a rest and closes the bar.
So Kelly, this one is for you. =) (credit to talkbass.com for this Schickele-inspired masterpiece)
C, E-flat, and G go into a bar.
The bartender says: "Sorry, but we don't serve minors." So, the E-flat leaves, and the C and the G have an open fifth between them. After a few drinks, the fifth is diminished: the G is out flat.
An F comes in and tries to augment the situation, but is not sharp enough. A D comes into the bar and heads straight for the bathroom saying, "Excuse me, I'll just be a second."
An A comes into the bar, but the bartender is not convinced that this relative of C is not a minor. Then the bartender notices a B-flat hiding at the end of the bar and exclaims: "Get out now! You're the seventh minor I've found in this bar tonight." The E-flat, not easily deflated, comes back to the bar the next night in a 3-piece suit with nicely shined shoes.
The bartender says: "You're looking sharp tonight, come on in! This could be a major development." This proves to be the case, as the E-flat takes off the suit and stands there au natural. Eventually, the C sobers up and realizes in horror that he's under a rest. The C is brought to trial, is found guilty of contributing to the diminution of a minor, and is sentenced to 10 years of DS without Coda at an upscale correctional facility.
On appeal, however, the C is found innocent of any wrongdoing, even accidental, and that all accusations to the contrary are bassless. The bartender decides, however, that since he's only had tenor so patrons, the soprano out in the bathroom, and everything has become alto much treble, he needs a rest and closes the bar.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Obviously this has been bugging me.
OK, I need to get a few things out of my system, then I will go back to observing my rule about not posting political stuff, because I am aware y'all don't agree with me or each other on everything and it's just not worth the drama.
But before I do, I would like to clarify some things for all of you who are not teachers. Just like being a kid does not make you an expert on parenting, being a student for 12 years does not make you an expert on education. As a student you do not see the big picture---even adults with kids in school who see MORE of the big picture still don't see everything, and their bias is naturally (and should be) focused on their kids, not the whole class.
1) Having an educated society benefits everyone, not just people with kids in school. That's why we ALL pay taxes for it, even if we're not using the service directly. My cooperating teacher used to say he was in teaching to help make sure the gangbangers grew up to be people he could live next door to. A kid who graduates from high school and can read is a kid who will probably grow up to be employed, and is much less likely to turn a house on your street into a meth factory.
2) We do get about 12 weeks off a year. But two of those are in December, one in March or April, and probably another week or two total for all the federal holidays (which other government workers get as well). We get paid for 180 days of work. But somehow I doubt legislators would pay us more if we worked the entire year. And the reason I doubt this is:
3) We have to pay money to keep our jobs. That's right. Name me ONE private sector job where that is the case. Nursing? maybe? Just to KEEP my job (which hasn't worked very well since I've been laid off twice) I have paid more than $10,000 taking classes to get my permanent license. That's not counting the almost $30,000 more I paid to get my master's degree so I could live above the poverty line---by the way in Washington that only gets me to about $45K if I was able to find a full time job. After I get my permanent license, I will have to take classes every five years to keep that license current. Out of pocket. Some districts reimburse you partly, but it's almost never the full amount.
In places where the "news" tells you that teachers make more than 45 or 50K, it's almost ALWAYS because the cost of living is higher there. In Clark County WA, people pay about $500 a year in taxes per 100K value of their home. That's ridiculously low compared to other places in the country. So our public servant pay is also understandably much lower.
4) 100% of my retirement comes out of my salary. Let that sink in. one-hundred-percent. And I don't just contribute to the state pension fund, I also have a private account because I'm not sure the state will have the money to pay me when I retire, and I'm also not sure if I'm eligible for Social Security (lots of states disqualify you for SS if you are a public employee). The money for that private account ALSO comes out of my salary. As well as SS contributions I may never get back. So to say that teachers get $40k of benefits or that cutting my retirement contribution would help state deficits would be laughable if so many people didn't believe it.
5) Bad teachers are not the problem, and unions do not really protect them. Nothing is ever that simple. Are there bad teachers? Yes, but not as many as you think. Think back to all the teachers you had in school. If you did the typical k-12, that's as many as 24-30 teachers. Out of those, how many were actually BAD? And I don't mean you had a personality conflict or political differences. How many were actually ineffective at getting ideas across? And of those, was it really the teacher or were you not interested in the subject so didn't work as hard as you could? I can only think of one for myself.
And of the hundreds of teachers I've worked with, I can only think of maybe 2 or 3 that I would consider "bad" (ineffective and/or shouldn't be teaching---not teachers with whom I differ in philosophy). 2 of those didn't start out that way, they were beaten down by a school district too large to be personal, and too many kids with needs not being met, and no resources to help the kids. In other words, the environment turned them into bad teachers....where they felt helpless and alone so gave up the fight. If you want to get rid of bad teachers, make it possible for them to succeed first and you might find there are more good teachers than bad. But of course, that might cost money and we can't have that...
As far as unions "protecting" bad teachers? Only in terms of tenure, if that even exists anymore. I have been laid off twice despite having stellar recommendations and reviews simply because I hadn't been working long enough. I can't lie, I do resent that a bit (especially in one case where I felt I was much more effective than the other music teacher I worked with). But I also know that after 30 years of dealing with low pay and low respect that I sure wouldn't want to be laid off so they could hire someone younger and cheaper. That is something the private sector does that I would like to avoid. But I would like to see more accountability for older teachers, holding them to the same standard they expect all new teachers to meet. And by accountability I don't mean test scores. I mean peer review. I mean making them recertify every 10 years (which is what National Board Certified teachers have to do), I mean making sure that they can attach a file to their effing email for crying out loud....technology is a standard these days.
6) The problem with "merit pay" is that not every subject is tested. So how can you base pay on test scores for some teachers but not others? Are we going to start testing every subject? Or do we give principals all the power to hire and fire people and just hope that the principal you work for never has a personality or philosophical conflict? And if there is no union, who is going to stand up for you? That lawyer you can hire with your $3000 a month take home pay?
7) There is very little accountability for student behavior. I would say that in the schools I have worked in, teaching appropriate behavior takes up at least half my instructional time. Then there's the time I spend after school making phone calls, making a paper trail of phone calls, emails, and meetings with administrators (to protect myself in case the kid gets mad and decides to make an accusation to get me in trouble---this happens more often than you would think...union-hired lawyers help protect us from that crap, too). I think my current district and the last one I worked for have been the best in terms of holding kids accountable, but there are legal things that keep administration from truly supporting us.
8) Private schools do better than public schools with less money because they can turn people away. It's that simple. And the people they do accept have already taken the initiative to apply and pay for it. That is a statistical indicator that the student will be more successful anyway. Imposing that model (through vouchers or charters) onto public schools will not fix the problems we have. We can't turn kids away. We don't have 100% involved parents. In the districts I've worked in that have charter schools or "open enrollment" (where kids can pick where they go) the kids with money and involved parents get into the good schools and the other kids are concentrated in another. Doesn't that sound like a recipe for success, huh? You can't expect schools to "fix" every societal problem if you won't give us the tools to make it happen (and I don't just mean money).
9) I never resent people in the private sector who make more money than I do. I chose this, and they are at more risk to the fluctuations of the market. They should get paid more to take that risk. But when the market goes sour, don't blame ME for choosing what I did. And don't you try to tell me that my pitiful salary is the reason the states have no money.
OK, back to our regularly scheduled blog and Facebook posts about Sam's potty training adventures. I feel better now.
But before I do, I would like to clarify some things for all of you who are not teachers. Just like being a kid does not make you an expert on parenting, being a student for 12 years does not make you an expert on education. As a student you do not see the big picture---even adults with kids in school who see MORE of the big picture still don't see everything, and their bias is naturally (and should be) focused on their kids, not the whole class.
1) Having an educated society benefits everyone, not just people with kids in school. That's why we ALL pay taxes for it, even if we're not using the service directly. My cooperating teacher used to say he was in teaching to help make sure the gangbangers grew up to be people he could live next door to. A kid who graduates from high school and can read is a kid who will probably grow up to be employed, and is much less likely to turn a house on your street into a meth factory.
2) We do get about 12 weeks off a year. But two of those are in December, one in March or April, and probably another week or two total for all the federal holidays (which other government workers get as well). We get paid for 180 days of work. But somehow I doubt legislators would pay us more if we worked the entire year. And the reason I doubt this is:
3) We have to pay money to keep our jobs. That's right. Name me ONE private sector job where that is the case. Nursing? maybe? Just to KEEP my job (which hasn't worked very well since I've been laid off twice) I have paid more than $10,000 taking classes to get my permanent license. That's not counting the almost $30,000 more I paid to get my master's degree so I could live above the poverty line---by the way in Washington that only gets me to about $45K if I was able to find a full time job. After I get my permanent license, I will have to take classes every five years to keep that license current. Out of pocket. Some districts reimburse you partly, but it's almost never the full amount.
In places where the "news" tells you that teachers make more than 45 or 50K, it's almost ALWAYS because the cost of living is higher there. In Clark County WA, people pay about $500 a year in taxes per 100K value of their home. That's ridiculously low compared to other places in the country. So our public servant pay is also understandably much lower.
4) 100% of my retirement comes out of my salary. Let that sink in. one-hundred-percent. And I don't just contribute to the state pension fund, I also have a private account because I'm not sure the state will have the money to pay me when I retire, and I'm also not sure if I'm eligible for Social Security (lots of states disqualify you for SS if you are a public employee). The money for that private account ALSO comes out of my salary. As well as SS contributions I may never get back. So to say that teachers get $40k of benefits or that cutting my retirement contribution would help state deficits would be laughable if so many people didn't believe it.
5) Bad teachers are not the problem, and unions do not really protect them. Nothing is ever that simple. Are there bad teachers? Yes, but not as many as you think. Think back to all the teachers you had in school. If you did the typical k-12, that's as many as 24-30 teachers. Out of those, how many were actually BAD? And I don't mean you had a personality conflict or political differences. How many were actually ineffective at getting ideas across? And of those, was it really the teacher or were you not interested in the subject so didn't work as hard as you could? I can only think of one for myself.
And of the hundreds of teachers I've worked with, I can only think of maybe 2 or 3 that I would consider "bad" (ineffective and/or shouldn't be teaching---not teachers with whom I differ in philosophy). 2 of those didn't start out that way, they were beaten down by a school district too large to be personal, and too many kids with needs not being met, and no resources to help the kids. In other words, the environment turned them into bad teachers....where they felt helpless and alone so gave up the fight. If you want to get rid of bad teachers, make it possible for them to succeed first and you might find there are more good teachers than bad. But of course, that might cost money and we can't have that...
As far as unions "protecting" bad teachers? Only in terms of tenure, if that even exists anymore. I have been laid off twice despite having stellar recommendations and reviews simply because I hadn't been working long enough. I can't lie, I do resent that a bit (especially in one case where I felt I was much more effective than the other music teacher I worked with). But I also know that after 30 years of dealing with low pay and low respect that I sure wouldn't want to be laid off so they could hire someone younger and cheaper. That is something the private sector does that I would like to avoid. But I would like to see more accountability for older teachers, holding them to the same standard they expect all new teachers to meet. And by accountability I don't mean test scores. I mean peer review. I mean making them recertify every 10 years (which is what National Board Certified teachers have to do), I mean making sure that they can attach a file to their effing email for crying out loud....technology is a standard these days.
6) The problem with "merit pay" is that not every subject is tested. So how can you base pay on test scores for some teachers but not others? Are we going to start testing every subject? Or do we give principals all the power to hire and fire people and just hope that the principal you work for never has a personality or philosophical conflict? And if there is no union, who is going to stand up for you? That lawyer you can hire with your $3000 a month take home pay?
7) There is very little accountability for student behavior. I would say that in the schools I have worked in, teaching appropriate behavior takes up at least half my instructional time. Then there's the time I spend after school making phone calls, making a paper trail of phone calls, emails, and meetings with administrators (to protect myself in case the kid gets mad and decides to make an accusation to get me in trouble---this happens more often than you would think...union-hired lawyers help protect us from that crap, too). I think my current district and the last one I worked for have been the best in terms of holding kids accountable, but there are legal things that keep administration from truly supporting us.
8) Private schools do better than public schools with less money because they can turn people away. It's that simple. And the people they do accept have already taken the initiative to apply and pay for it. That is a statistical indicator that the student will be more successful anyway. Imposing that model (through vouchers or charters) onto public schools will not fix the problems we have. We can't turn kids away. We don't have 100% involved parents. In the districts I've worked in that have charter schools or "open enrollment" (where kids can pick where they go) the kids with money and involved parents get into the good schools and the other kids are concentrated in another. Doesn't that sound like a recipe for success, huh? You can't expect schools to "fix" every societal problem if you won't give us the tools to make it happen (and I don't just mean money).
9) I never resent people in the private sector who make more money than I do. I chose this, and they are at more risk to the fluctuations of the market. They should get paid more to take that risk. But when the market goes sour, don't blame ME for choosing what I did. And don't you try to tell me that my pitiful salary is the reason the states have no money.
OK, back to our regularly scheduled blog and Facebook posts about Sam's potty training adventures. I feel better now.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Should ensembles be extra-curricular?
I applied for a job in Edinburgh. I don't think they'll even interview me, I'm sure there's a hundred qualified music teachers who wouldn't need a work visa. But in researching this particular school, I learned some things about the UK school system (and if I'm totally off in what I found, will Mark Skaba please correct me?):
1) All students in public or private schools are required to take exit exams (if you read Harry Potter, think OWLs and NEWTs---they're actually called GCSEs). There is a GCSE exam in music. This means that even low performing schools have to at least give their students access to music through the high school level. However, this does not refer to offering ensembles. See point 2.
2) Music is generally offered as an academic course---like it is in college here. Ensembles are considered "extra curricular" and are offered outside the school day. Almost exactly like we do for physical education here (you learn about the sport and basics of how to play in PE, but to actually play the sport, you join the after school team). Some schools structure it differently
This made me wonder: If NCLB says music (or social studies, art, and foreign language)are "core subjects" necessary for a well-rounded student, why are only three subjects tested? Should we test all subjects? And if so, would it make more sense to move music to a general study subject and make ensembles extra-curricular? In all the budget cuts, secondary music teachers here have scrambled to find a way to save their programs. Twenty years ago, this meant doing research that found music to be really valuable to brain development, teaching responsibility, keeping high-risk kids interested in school....blah blah blah.....that's not enough anymore. We're still getting cut.
How can we say music is important but still only teach 10% of the school population---since our system is structured around ensembles? How can you justify employing that many people who teach so few kids? The answer is: You can't. Thus we see music getting shuffled out of schedules, kids being taken out for remedial reading, since that IS tested. No one cares if music is good for lengthening attention span when the only group you spend extra time with is your jazz band or chamber choir of 15 students. And of course, there are teachers who have huge programs with several hundred students involved, which is great. But even those programs cap out between half or a little over half the total school population. At most. What about the other half? Do they not deserve music? Is it not important for them? Or is that something we tell administrators to justify our existence? If so, less and less of them are buying it.
Some places require students take music for at least 1/2 a year, or a year to graduate from high school. That's great, it's a start, but it's not enough. How much benefit does a kid really get from 1 year of piano? A year of beginning band in 9th grade? Especially if there's no continuity (no feeder program, no advanced class, no options after that except ensembles they may not be able/want to do)? What about the kid who really likes music, has a great ear, but NO interest in performing? How many jobs can you think of where a student like that could make a living in the music industry? Fixing instruments? Editing sheet music? Sound technician? The list goes on and on, yet we cling to this paradigm of training performers. Because that's what we are. Is performing important? Sure. It's a performance art. But the research doesn't say that performing is the part that benefits students. It certainly brings all the skills together in a real meaningful way, but that's not where the learning takes place. That usually happens in class. During the instruction and work time.
I think if we as a subject are to survive in this environment we really need to take a good hard look at what we do and why. And the solution needs to be centered around what's good for kids, what they actually need to learn, not what's good for our egos and the PR of the school and district.
1) All students in public or private schools are required to take exit exams (if you read Harry Potter, think OWLs and NEWTs---they're actually called GCSEs). There is a GCSE exam in music. This means that even low performing schools have to at least give their students access to music through the high school level. However, this does not refer to offering ensembles. See point 2.
2) Music is generally offered as an academic course---like it is in college here. Ensembles are considered "extra curricular" and are offered outside the school day. Almost exactly like we do for physical education here (you learn about the sport and basics of how to play in PE, but to actually play the sport, you join the after school team). Some schools structure it differently
This made me wonder: If NCLB says music (or social studies, art, and foreign language)are "core subjects" necessary for a well-rounded student, why are only three subjects tested? Should we test all subjects? And if so, would it make more sense to move music to a general study subject and make ensembles extra-curricular? In all the budget cuts, secondary music teachers here have scrambled to find a way to save their programs. Twenty years ago, this meant doing research that found music to be really valuable to brain development, teaching responsibility, keeping high-risk kids interested in school....blah blah blah.....that's not enough anymore. We're still getting cut.
How can we say music is important but still only teach 10% of the school population---since our system is structured around ensembles? How can you justify employing that many people who teach so few kids? The answer is: You can't. Thus we see music getting shuffled out of schedules, kids being taken out for remedial reading, since that IS tested. No one cares if music is good for lengthening attention span when the only group you spend extra time with is your jazz band or chamber choir of 15 students. And of course, there are teachers who have huge programs with several hundred students involved, which is great. But even those programs cap out between half or a little over half the total school population. At most. What about the other half? Do they not deserve music? Is it not important for them? Or is that something we tell administrators to justify our existence? If so, less and less of them are buying it.
Some places require students take music for at least 1/2 a year, or a year to graduate from high school. That's great, it's a start, but it's not enough. How much benefit does a kid really get from 1 year of piano? A year of beginning band in 9th grade? Especially if there's no continuity (no feeder program, no advanced class, no options after that except ensembles they may not be able/want to do)? What about the kid who really likes music, has a great ear, but NO interest in performing? How many jobs can you think of where a student like that could make a living in the music industry? Fixing instruments? Editing sheet music? Sound technician? The list goes on and on, yet we cling to this paradigm of training performers. Because that's what we are. Is performing important? Sure. It's a performance art. But the research doesn't say that performing is the part that benefits students. It certainly brings all the skills together in a real meaningful way, but that's not where the learning takes place. That usually happens in class. During the instruction and work time.
I think if we as a subject are to survive in this environment we really need to take a good hard look at what we do and why. And the solution needs to be centered around what's good for kids, what they actually need to learn, not what's good for our egos and the PR of the school and district.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
