“Smash” – Episode 5

Episode 5, “Let’s Be Bad,” sets up some personal conflicts and expands on some already set up and developing. However, I don’t want to get into the soap-opera aspects of the show: I would rather discuss a little something that irritates me. Since I like so very, very much about this show, the annoyances loom larger than they would probably seem otherwise.

Here’s the thing: Character Derek Wills, the show’s director, has repeatedly shown himself to be an obnoxious and egotistical, yet talented, artist. Tom, the composer, calls him “a horrible human being.” His talents are supposed to be so unbelievably great that people tend to cut him a lot of slack in both his professional and personal relationships. Okay, I’ve known some artistic types like that. Most of the time they weren’t nearly as talented as they thought themselves to be.

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Derek really is that good. Does that excuse the fact that he is having an affair with (or, to be more accurate, just sleeping with) the show’s star – and he has been since before she was selected for the role of Marilyn? Is this common practice in the world of today’s Broadway shows? I hope not. Perhaps it’s just a plot device, like in any other show, designed to increase the conflict between the characters.

Okay, I’ll concede that it might just be dramatic license. But his behavior in rehearsal – a professional environment – is another thing altogether. Lots of shows about musicians, actors and other entertainers have featured the stereotypical obnoxious, demanding boss: sometimes it’s done for drama, sometimes for comedic effect.

One of my pet peeves in the “Law and Order” franchises is their treatment of artists of all types. (They also consistently hate rich people – all rich people. But that’s for another day.) Temperamental, overbearing painters, orchestra conductors, architects,even novelists have usually been portrayed pretty much one-dimensional. Even murderers generally got treated better!

But I digress. In this episode, Derek not only embarrasses Ivy in front of the ensemble – repeatedly – he even forces Karen to demonstrate how he wants Ivy to sing a passage, in what I thought to be a very uncomfortable scene. (At least it was uncomfortable for me.) This is made worse by the fact that he asks her to sing “Happy Birthday, Mister President,” which Karen had sung for him the night he tried to seduce her. He even says, “I’ve heard you do it, go ahead,” or words to that effect, implying to everyone in the room that something personal had taken place between them in the past. Why does he not think this would undermine the ensemble’s respect for him?

The writers make sure we know that there are union-mandated breaks in rehearsals by creating a character who is basically just  there for that purpose. Do they really expect us to believe that Actors’ Equity is concerned about the timing of rehearsal breaks but not about harassment – in particular, pretty obvious sexual harassment?

I’ve worked with many, many musicians, students and adults, amateur and professional. It doesn’t matter what group you work with. All artists deserve to be treated with respect. Derek’s behavior would get him fired in most of the situations I’ve been in, no matter how talented he might be.

This is why I couldn’t write tv drama. I couldn’t force my own suspension of disbelief enough to set up the dramatic tension in this way. I’ll keep watching, not expecting it to be real life. The musical performances are just too much fun for me to abandon the show now. In fact, I haven’t heard a musical number in the show yet that I haven’t thoroughly enjoyed. But…I can hope for a little reality thrown in, though, can’t I?

Maybe not. I realize that since this a “musical about the making of a musical,” there’s not much more chance that the plot line will be realistic than that the intercuts from the rehearsals to full performances of the musical numbers really happen that way…

One more little rant about the public/private school issue…

OK, first, you’re right. If you pay your property taxes, but you choose to send your children to kids to private schools, you’re paying for something you’re not getting. Guess what? My last kid graduated in 1999. I’m still paying my property taxes, too. You knew when you bought your house where those taxes would go. You made a choice to spend the money to go someplace else for your education.

Most government-subsidized services (sewer, water, roads, etc.) don’t have private alternatives. In our area we just barely got alternatives in buying electric power in the last year or two – and we still pay ComEd for the infrastructure, of course.  Since education isn’t used by everyone, and there are private alternatives, it becomes a focus.

I live in a pretty affluent area. People like the fact that their property values are higher because of the perceived excellence of the public schools in the area. That’s even true of a lot of the folks in the area who don’t send their kids to those schools, some of whom say they derive little to no benefit from the publish schools.

A couple of years ago, when the recession hit, the school I used to teach in suddenly added a bunch of new students because it became too expensive for their parents to keep them in private schools. I wonder if they decided after a year or so that the public school was all that bad…

I’d love to go back in time and debate whether we should have offered free public education in the first place in the US. Unfortunately, we can’t unring that bell, now. Today it’s practically considered a “right,” like so many other things that aren’t really rights.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: more affluent school districts can hire better teachers because they can offer more money. They also have already selected for a generally more intelligent student body, because in general their parents couldn’t live in the district if they were not smart enough, and ambitious enough, to earn enough money to buy a home there. In a way, that means those schools work much like selective private schools. Those schools select for the students they want. In the case of schools in affluent public school districts, the economics of the district do it for them.

Even then, I would wager that most public schools, even in the most affluent districts, have a wider range of student abilities and backgrounds than most private schools. I know of a private school nearby that requires testing for entry, like many of them do. The only other way to get in is as a legacy student – in one case, an older sister had been a student there.

I don’t have any data on how many private schools are not academically selective. Again, most are selective to a degree just because the parents care enough, and can afford enough, to send their children there. That skews comparison with a local public school. The parents might not be rich, but they definitely are more motivated for their children’s success.

I still keep hearing the same arguments about the cost of public education and private education that I heard ten years ago. No one ever brings up the “third rail” of public education: special ed. How many private schools are equipped to handle students with special needs? Are any required to do so? If your child requires a full-time aide as determined by her IEP, will a private school provide that person? The public school is required to by law.

In the school from which I recently retired, the largest department by number of staff was Special Education. I don’t have data in front of me, but I’m pretty sure it served the smallest number of kids. That’s a huge expense private schools don’t have to bear.

Please understand I am not saying that providing these services is bad – just that it is far more expensive than providing an education to the “average” student. If you are going to compare private and public schools, take the things out of the equation that private schools don’t provide, then run the numbers. Then let’s see how the students gain entry into the private schools. Then we’ll talk.

Disclaimer: As with all my posts, the above only reflects only my own opinion, and should in no way reflect on any institutions, public or private, with which I may or may not have been affilliated.

And don’t forget Steve Wozniak!

Wozniak (left) and Jobs

Let’s not forget the other half of the original Apple team, Steve Wozniak (OK, and with Ronald Wayne). Woz was the real hardware guy of the two, was older and was working at HP at the time they came together and decided to market a computer for people who didn’t want to build it themselves. (There were “personal” computers, but you had to be able to assemble it yourself and program it. Not very friendly.)

Actually, the Apple I didn’t do that very well. The user had to provide a case, a power supply, a display, and a keyboard – the computer was basically a circuit board. The Apple II and its descendants, the II+, IIc, and IIe, and finally IIGS, were much more user-friendly and were true “personal” computers.

Woz worked on and off for Apple until 1987, but his real design days were in the development of the Apple I and II in the very early days of the company. He’s been involved in a lot of business ventures since then and is active in providing computers for schools.

More thoughts on education: it’s still a barrel of snakes

I used this because all the images of barrels of snakes were gross!

Jerry Pournelle, who has a lot of brilliant things to say on many subjects, blogged today about the conditions of US education responding to comments recently made by Bill Gates. Gates has an educational foundation and has actually spent some time looking at excellent schools. I don’t think that I agree with everything he says, at least not in the excerpts in Pournelle’s piece, but I think it’s interesting that Gates is at least speaking out about it and not taking the government line.

Gates makes the point that excellent teachers are not enough – they require support systems to be effective. That is a point that is often ignored. As we used to say, teachers used to close the door in September and come out in June. Or something like that. Anyway, the point was that each classroom was self-contained and sort of existed in a vacuum.

That can’t happen in today’s educational environment, not with all the outside influences. Pournelle mentions that one of the of the major points Gates doesn’t bring up in the speech is the subject of discipline. I would put that both in “classroom environment” and “support.”

It’s a big issue. Without a good classroom environment nothing else can take place, but there’s no simple solution to handling school discipline problems. It’s a barrel of snakes by itself, and I’m not prepared to do a major essay on school discipline right now.

Gates’ remarks were make to the Urban League. Here is a link to those remarks.

Pournelle talks about how education was once much more a local responsibility, before it became so tied up in state and Federal requirements. I don’t think all the regulations are in any way helpful in the long run, sorry; and while lots of districts want that state and Federal aid, I wouldn’t be surprised if many districts wouldn’t need it if they could eliminate a lot of the regulations and red tape they have to deal with.

One of these days I’ll have to do a little essay on regulations in education, as seen from a teacher’s point of view.

One of the biggest problems in education is that everyone tries to simplify the issues! Discipline is a complex issue, regulation is a very complex issue, grading and promotion, special education, and all kinds of other issues are very, very complicated. Like the Federal spending issue or climate change, these things don’t really work very well as fifteen-second sound bites, no matter how hard the drive-by media tries.

Ah…well, both Pournelle and Gates make some interesting points. I invite you to read their thoughts.

Why putting an “excellent” teacher in a classroom won’t do it all…

Sorry, but it's coming soon...

Now, I’m all for improving the skills of teachers, as well as for improving teaching conditions, the attitudes of teachers and students, and everything else that is involved in the cycle of teaching and learning (including the quality of the cafeteria food). But there’s been a lot of talk about “excellent” teachers and how they are going to save us from the lazy and stupid teachers that supposedly inhabit most of the classrooms of Amurrrica.

That’s a myth on several levels.

First, read this article from the LA Times. (Hat tip to Jennifer Fleck, Chicago Public Schools teacher and department chair and former student of mine, for bringing it to my attention. She’s awesome!)

The author makes some really good points. We’re reaching the place where every student is “special” in some way, regardless of what school you teach in, poor public school or high-achieving private school. No single human being can be everything for everyone. I think it’s killing off some of best teachers trying to.

When I started teaching 34 years ago there was just plain less you were responsible to teach. I think that was true in just about every content area. Not because of the explosion of knowledge in the last few decades, either: just because every special-interest group and federal and state agency in the Known Universe didn’t dictate curriculum. There were fewer inservice days and shortened days for collaboration because, frankly, there was less to have to collaborate about. Math teachers could teach math and didn’t have to “integrate” with other subjects.

Now this will upset some folks, but special education alone has placed a huge burden on the regular classroom teacher in the last few decades. More and more kids who used to be in self-contained classrooms, or were taught for a limited number of years and maybe didn’t even complete high school because of severe learning disabilities are now placed in the general class population, often with no supports. Even a wealthy school district like the one where I used to teach couldn’t provide all the teacher’s aides needed for all the special ed students placed in regular classes.

I understand all the reasons why it’s good to place these students in with the general school population. But when you are a regular classroom teacher and now you have to create four versions of each test, because the government mandates that students with certain disabilities and IEPs deserve that kind of special consideration, it’s going to increase your workload – and nobody gets more planning time for that. And we were a school with more supports than most. I don’t know how it gets done in a 500-student high school in downstate Illinois.

You can be an excellent teacher but you may just burn out faster. Or you may be smart enough to say, “That’s it. I’ve had enough. I can find another job outside of education where I don’t have to have the achievement bar raised constantly by board members with a hidden agenda, and be criticized daily by fourteen-year-olds and their parents.” And they leave. I think more excellent teachers are leaving all the time. The ones who stay are the ones who are super-dedicated or who have no other prospects. I stayed because it was the best way for me to be involved in music every day of my life. I found that sharing that excitement with kids was extremely rewarding (at least most of the time). It didn’t keep me from considering another field from time to time. And when the opportunity for retirement came, I was ready. I don’t regret my years spent teaching my students. But if I was going to be starting out as a teacher today…it would be a much more difficult decision.

What’s the answer? Is it only class size? No. As a music teacher I had big classes a lot, but of course I didn’t have the number of assignments to grade that, say, a math teacher has. I had different ways I had to spend a lot of time outside of the school day, though. I think it’s a combination of things. And one thing more than any other -

STOP DEMONIZING ANYBODY!

What does that mean? Well, it’s easy to blame the teachers’ unions. That’s Rush Limbaugh. Unfortunately – and I agree with Rush on a lot of other things – he has no frakking idea what teachers’ unions are like. The locals are only loosely connected to the NEA. (The AFT may be different; I never taught under them.) It’s not like the Teamsters’. Each local has a lot of individual latitude in how it relates to the local school board and community. Rush tends to treat them monolithically to make a point, but it’s a flawed argument most of the time. It’s not like there is “a” teachers’ union that affects every teacher equally all across the US. I felt very little effect from the NEA when I taught. It really is more of a lobbying group than anything else.

All school boards are not created equal. If you don’t like them, run for a slot or vote for someone else; unfortunately, often school board candidates are people with a personal axe to grind. Some are very pro-teacher, some are very, very-anti-teacher. Teachers like to blame the board; sometimes it’s not malice, but ignorance. They only know what they are told or they see, and sometimes the superintendent controls than information to his or her own benefit. Of course, sometimes, it is malice.

Some school administrators are very pro-student and/or pro-teacher; some are tools of the board and/or mere papershufflers. Nowadays, most superintendents don’t stay in a district very long. That shows they aren’t looking out for the long-term educational health of the community. I think that’s very sad. They can’t be blamed unilaterally either.

There are great young teachers, great old teachers, poor young teachers, poor old teachers, and a lot of pretty decent, very hard-working teachers. Just like in any field, you hear about the top and the bottom. Don’t tar everybody with the same brush, or say, “See? They’re all like that!” Get to know them. You’ll find out that they are like everybody else, with morgages (hopefully), kids (usually), and the same kinds of hopes and dreams as you and your family. (You know, they even go to the grocery store, just like people do!)

How about this: the next time you want special treatment for your kid, think to yourself, “How many times has this teacher heard something like this this week? Can she really handle all of these requests without looking like she has no standards at all to her class? Will that undermine her respect and authority? Will the principal even let her do it? And is it really fair to ask her for special treatment, or does my kid need to learn a lesson here?”

Just some thoughts from an old parent, a relatively new grandparent who has a granddaughter going to first grade this month (!), who also taught thousands upon thousands of kids in two states over 34 years…

Go get your Grammar Moment!

Go to one of my other blogs right now to get your Grammar Moment of the day. You’ll be glad you did!