Gingrich: Changing Child Labor Laws Would Improve Schools - Politics K-12 - Education Week

I'm all for hard work, and I expect hard work from my children. However, we do have a candidate for president--now a serious one--that has a few...unorthodox...ideas about kids. What is Newt Gingrich's idea of the biggest challenge facing public schools today? Child Labor Laws.

My man Newt Gingrich is now working to fix child labor laws to include full janitorial work by young students. If we could just get rid of the UNION janitorial jobs...

[Note that UNION needed to be included in this whole line of Gingrich logic.]

...we could then put students in poor schools to work. We would give them a chance to earn money and learn how to show up on Monday, as his quote reads.

Newt, school starts on Monday. They are working, and they are even doing some of the custodial work. I remember banging chalkboard erasers back in the day, and my other kids fight for the opportunity to hold various class duties. The jobs teachers give the kids are seen as an honor. They imply a certain level of trust from the teacher.

Newt has a tendency to be creative in a very alarming way. In a previous campaign, he lamented that we don't have any really good orphanages in this country. This election, he sees child labor protection as a problem...and a way to get those dang UNIONS out of the picture. How do we create jobs? Fire all the custodians and have children do the work. That will teach them a work ethic. Of course, in those poorest of neighborhoods, these same kids see their parents out of work. Still, they get to school. On Monday.

How is it that these "great ideas" always begin under the guise of helping poor kids?

Gingrich: Changing Child Labor Laws Would Improve Schools - Politics K-12 - Education Week.

via Gingrich: Changing Child Labor Laws Would Improve Schools - Politics K-12 - Education Week.

Survey documents retirement worries of higher ed employees | Inside Higher Ed

Fox News joins boards of trustees around the nation and academic administration organizations to celebrate increasing job satisfaction

Many academic employees plan to "never retire"

Survey documents retirement worries of higher ed employees | Inside Higher Ed.

I Guess I Love the Orlando Magic. For Now.

I've been frustrated, lately. Nothing I could write would have meaning in my mind while Penn State was still playing football. The rage in my brain. Wow...

Fortunately, a prominent coach has done a fine job of pointing out about 60% of the issues. I'll let him do the heavy lifting with a repost.

Nebraska would have gone a long way toward legitimacy by refusing to play. We know what counts in Lincoln, though. Husker is another term for enabler. They have a history.

One last thing: if you close down SMU's football program for recruiting violations, I'll expect the death of this program shortly.

Here's the link.

Next week, I'll try to forget and blog again.

I'll try.

Ribbons Don't Work. Knock It Off.

Just ran across my next post, already written!

My thanks to Beehive and Birdsnest for saving me the trouble of writing this next post. This goes out to all the policy analysts out there. Study this:

Red Ribbon Week: An Analysis

'nuff said.

Slap Butt Friday

(You don't even know he's looking. Then you're mad. You people sadden me.)

When I was in school, things were different. We grew up in a very rural part of America and in an area that was not interested in a cosmopolitan lifestyle. Remember happy days of playing “Smear the Queer” on the playground. Good times among us good Christian boys. Then there was that whole “monkey” thing.

It was a simple game, really. You walked up to an unsuspecting 3^rd or 4^th grader. You yelled, “Monkey!” and then smashed him in his genitals with your fist.

I know this.

I was the one who started it.

This became a popular game, and thus, a problem. We were all called down to the elementary school gymnasium. All boys in these two classes. All read the Riot Act. In fact, I learned something about male fertility and the threats that this game posed. The gym teacher was very angry about this problem. I was an innocent at this point, clueless as to what was going on. It was funny to me at the time. Then I was told it wasn’t funny. We stopped.

Fast forward about 40 years or something, now we’re dealing with 5^th graders. Someone suggests “Slap-Butt Friday.” This becomes a major issue. Nobody is making anybody sterile in this plan. But this becomes even more scary to the school.

If somebody slaps a butt, and that slap is unwanted, it becomes sexual harassment. Thus, the phenomenon of pre-teen on pre-teen violence? Seems like somebody slaps a butt, gets slapped in the face, end of game.

Not a chance. There were meetings. Meetings about meetings. Hand-wringing. Then a united front from teachers and staff: ZERO TOLERANCE OF 10 YEAR OLDS SLAPPING OTHER 10 YEAR OLD BUTTS. DO YOU HEAR THAT?

ZERO.

We can all sleep soundly. SBF never materialized, though I cannot imagine this being the incredible detriment that others saw it becoming. Where I guess I just saw a bunch of dopey kids joking around, it became fodder for lawsuits, labeled as potential sexual assault, prison time, and Rick Perry sticking a needle in somebody’s neck.

I’d call it an over-reaction, but I can’t. We live in a world where schools (and the teachers) are placed in the position of defendants-in-waiting. That’s too bad. I don’t know why I’m not in jail sometimes. I mean, 75 to 100 boys beating on each others’ testicles was a problem. SBF? That was just a petty issue that became way too big for no good reason.

Glad I don’t teach these days.

"Who Do You Think You Are?!"--Mom

I know this won't be a major publication on anyone's list, but it bothers me that this was even written, especially in 2011. Three authors are telling the higher education community to talk to each other. Worse. People see this as a new concept of sorts.

Unexpected Conversations

Thoughtful people write these blogs, and I often tell myself that these professors are in different buildings, that communication gets difficult.  Still, this kind of thing brings frustration: why is all of this new to academics? Simple, really. A total lack of respect for the "scholarship of teaching and learning" that comes from those that spend their time thinking about teaching and learning.

Once upon a time, professional development (for K-12) teachers was treated much the same way general instruction was treated for children. Teachers sat in a room. Some “expert,” be they a principal or a professor, told them how to teach better.

Somewhere along the line, a group was formed that saw teachers as professionals. And I'm not talking about the NEA.

It was the National Staff Development Council, now called Learning Forward—whatever that means. Decades of branding...gone. Nobody's perfect.

Their focus was on peer learning. Teachers need time to interact. Teachers need structured ways to learn from each other. This is a tough sell because the world is filled with teachers who think just like I did: PD is a day off if you...just...work...it...right. You do this; I'll do that. Great. Glad we learned something. See you tomorrow. Next time, let's have this 5-minute meeting at a bar.

That's why there needs to be a structure. Most schools get that, now. By schools, I mean the institutions that teach people under the age of 19. Unfortunately, the same research and innovation is not being pushed in the higher education ranks. People can have great ideas on their own, and other caring professors take the time to learn how to reach students. In fact, let's be honest: most do. The caricature of the absent-minded, smug college professor is just that. Nobody wants to be miserable in front of others for hours every week of years upon years. On top of that, most professors were inspired by other professors (or, dare I day it, public school teachers!). People want to bottle that and distribute it.

No, the point is that in a P-16 world, both sides need to learn from each other. If you are an education professor, and you are reading this, please note these three things:

1. You are spending your time wisely reading my blog!


2. You have a lot to learn from practitioners. A lot. I don't care how good you think you are any more than I care how good you really are. Any 3^rd grade teacher worth his weight in Dillo Dirt has a lot to offer you.


3. Anything that is actually new? Well, you will look long and hard to find more willing participants and partners in the discovery process. Oh, and they're smart people, too...generally speaking.

Those in higher education need to look at public schools as more than warehouses of children, sources for voluminous study subjects/data, and places to make a buck as “experts.” The fact is, P-12 has become much more aware of itself, and the lack of respect from colleges and universities...well, it's only hurting those showing the disrespect. It's time to bring "experts" on to the campus.

Yeah, But Do You Have the Will?

Cross-post today.  Love it when I only have to write once.

A former colleague of mine just wrote an article for the Music Educators Journal. Although my work has morphed over the past decade or so, I like to keep up with music education issues.  There are two reasons for this:

1. There are many cross-references to K-12 education (in general) and higher education.

2. Musicians claim to be creative people. When musicians are actually creative as educators, beautiful things happen that serve as models.

So the idea of a music education scholar approaching the studio teaching concept is a beautiful thing to me.  There is much that the education community (especially those in music education) have to offer studio teachers and performers.  This is one of those cases, and it takes on a key problem with studio music teachers.

Musicians in élite groups always speak of high standards of musicianship. The problem is that those standards are by nature subjective. That's fine, but too many times that subjectivity gets extrapolated beyond it's usefulness and necessity. Using a performance example, I have absolutely no idea why Jerry Junkin at "School Loosely Affiliated with Longhorn Football" decided that Tschesnokoff's "Salvation Is Created" needs to take 20 minutes to perform. Or is it 30. I fall asleep.

It's a subjective decision, but within that decision are a fair amount of flat-out facts. When you look around, nobody else is taking this tempo. When you listen around, nobody is recording that tempo. Unless there's some obscure letter somewhere, one can wonder if this is what the composer intended. I can't imagine a composer, even a Russian composer, deciding on a tempo of 50 bpm.

Or is it 30 bpm. I fall asleep.

Finally, nobody wants to hear this piece played this way. If nobody listens, it's the wind ensemble equivalent of a tree falling in the forest discussion. That's too bad. It's a great ensemble.

When you compare current practice, the music education standards offer studio teachers and conductors quite a bit of structure. Within that structure are the myriad opportunities for subjective artistic decision-making (the fun part). But every studio teacher should have a clear idea of what she or he want each student to know, do, and be like. In fact, studio teachers would do well to reconsider their goals in light of these standards. Instruction should be geared toward the mental picture that comes from fully considering the final "product."

The standards do not allow themselves to be chained to the old ideas of music education. This is especially challenging for a studio teacher. As the mentor, a studio teacher needs to foster actual creativity and decision making in their own students. That would lead to some radical change in most studios. Does a student get to choose their own Baroque embellishments? Does a student (think undergraduate) ever get a piece with a section demanding improvisation? Without a piece of music, does a non-jazz performer ever get to...I don't know...just play?

In the more popular music culture, music is created in apartments, garages, and studios. Yes, guitarists learn three chords first. Yes, pianists must learn scales. But these are supposed to be means to a creative end. The goal should be art, not reproduction. We have reproduction everywhere else. We need original ideas. Not just from internet-types or marketing majors. From musicians, the ones who are supposed to be among the most creative.

This article is academic in nature, and I hesitated to put the link to the abstract up due to my position (read it both ways--it works). Still, the idea that a studio teacher would forego a semester of studying the Hindemith Concerto for [insert any instrument here] and choose to focus on creativity is exciting. Schools have to rethink what they're doing today, whether they teach 5 year olds of 25 year olds. It's unfortunate that "thinking outside the box" is one of the very last things on the minds of those that claim to be creative by nature. It's why we have a glut of composers; they're apparently the only ones allowed to actually create in the music world.

So do this. Read the MENC standards. All of them. Implement as many as possible into your teaching, studio folk. Make every senior and graduate recital one of creativity, as well as "high standards."

If you do that, I promise to stay awake for the whole thing.