My Charter School - Part 2 (Music School)

    I haven't decided if I'm going to make my son read this.  Actually, I haven't decided if I'm going to ask my son to read this and have him tell me no.  He is awesome.  He plays multiple instruments.  He plays violin, harp, marimba, and piano.  The fact that he plays so many sometimes makes it hard for him to excel in any, but I think his skills and talents are amazing.  But I think Band sucks. 

    In my opinion Band sucks, but he loves it.  It does though, it sucks so bad.  First, band costs too much.  I'm not talking about the musical instruments, but the program.  The competition that the students are going to be involved in is too much damn money.  My son's school's band program cost a million dollars and 500 ish students also ponied up $600 dollars a piece and there are multiple fundraisers.  That's too much damn money.

    I know that there are people who sort of shmack talk about whether it's more difficult to be in band than in say football, for me they're both too difficult.  But football get more praise.  So the band spends hundreds of hours putting together this really expensive show.  It takes too long.  They used to do it for the football team only.  Now they have massive competitions that cost too much money no one but the band knows who won unless it's was your team.  Band has taken on a mind of its own which is good, because they shouldn't serve the football team, but they still kind of do.  

    Band is art, it makes you smarter, attention to detail, discipline in skill building, some athleticism; these are all reasons why band should be practiced in school.  But in my charter school things will be much different than they are at your normal 5A or 6A school band program.

    These days Band lives for marching season.  Marching season is the program that they do at halftime.  The band is practicing at the game and usually only doing part of their program.  The real competition is the multiple competitions they do on Saturdays after the game.  12 hour long competitions.  They're trying to make their program perfect by about the end of the football regular season where they'll probably go to state band competitions.  During the week, the students practice in double blocks, that means an hour and a half everyday.  Then they have multiple after school practices.  Then they have Friday morning before the game and they're at the game 5-10:00 or later.  It takes as much time as a part time job.  20-30 hours.  It takes too much time.  And the program they're perfecting, is usually only three or four songs.  This is why I hate it.

    Band stopped being about being really good at music and started being about the competition.  Band members devote so much memory their marching and aren't spending enough time learning the notes to more songs.  Some band members do band only for marching band season.  I think that is a problem and so far I haven't seen any limiting principle.  How much practicing for these competitions is too much.  There are rules and laws about how much time should be utilized, but it doesn't seem that many top notch schools follow these rules.  I know my son's school doesn't.  Sometimes, the rules are purposefully vague.  

    I think those rules should be clear and concise.  I think there should be an hour long class in school everyday.  I think there should be no more than five hours outside of school for that.  There would be no reason to get ready for football games.  There should be no marching competitions because there isn't enough time.  Band could produce shows but not buy them.  Schools could have simple uniforms, but cheap.  And emphasis should be placed on exceptional play and music library rather than expert steps.  One goes with the musician after school one doesn't.  

    Band after marching season and after football season is for competitions and shows.  So it should be still.  

    Band can play at smaller sporting events that are intramural, but they should create these halftime shows themselves and with the help of faculty.  They don't have to be professional productions.  Why should they be.  They AREN'T professionals.

    Orchestra should be the same as band.  Learning a large library of songs, pressed to play with greater talent and skill on a limited basis in school and some out of school.  

ANTS SPECIALIZE

    Athletes who are good enough to play intramurally for the school should have enough time to play in either band or orchestra.  Band members should have enough time to do band and orchestra.  Or they could be part of a musical club/class and another club instead of athletics.  If students are in two things outside of school they should be able to do them both in 10 hours.  NO more.  Limiting principles.  If the students and their parents want the student to achieve some sort of professional grade athleticism or musical talent then they should do that at home.  Their parents are responsible for that schools are not.  Schools shouldn't be.  

MISSION CREEP

Schools all over the US are getting confused thinking that there purpose is to produce students who are professional grade in high school and starting them on the path in middle school.  NO.  Schools are preparing students for LIFE.  The talents that they achieve should be introductory.  If they're doing something seven years of secondary education I think they should be good enough to go to any college music program because they're more focused without competitions.  If not, their parents should be the ones who have stronger expectations at home, not at school.  I think athletes in my school can do the same a varied capability in many sports may make them a more all-around athlete.  If the parent thinks the student needs more time in basketball or tennis, or whatever, they can see to those needs themselves or go to a school with bad priorities.   

My Charter School - Part 1 (Athletics)

    My future charter school needs a lot of work and planning.  What makes up a school what makes it good and what makes it bad?  I know very few people read this blog, but one day maybe I make a charter school and people read this in order to understand it.  First, I'm going to spend a significant amount of digital ink on EXTRA curriculars.

    The first football game was between Yale and Harvard.  It wasn't nigh unto professional sports.  I cannot imagine those students spending more than a couple of hours a week practicing and they were the only teams that filled out a team that year.  Soon many others would join.  Other schools in the last century and a half have had football teams much faster.  Yale and Harvard were open over a hundred years a piece before they started playing intramural sports.  But even colleges that were started between 1850 and 1950 started small, a college, that focused and grew and changed and added sports over time.  Now new schools race to have athletic programs.  

   And high school follow along the same trajectory.  They had no programs in small towns, then they had small programs, then they had large programs.  Now, middle schools have programs that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.  The costs are in some ways hidden by the labor.  Four coaches in athletics means $200,000+ but they also teach.  Well, some of them.  They use trainors from the high school, their gear is nike, or under armour, the kids bring in some money, they fund raise.  Middle school programs now I would guess cost more even with inflation than college programs did say 75 years ago.  Sounds like a long time?  High school programs I believe cost more than college did 35 years ago, is my guess.  There are exceptions.  Big college verses little high school might not be close, but the point is there is an unquestionable gradual growth.  And there doesn't seem to be a limiting principle.  

    Why would there be a limiting principle.  The more colleges spend on athletics, the more they get from advertising dollars for being on TV.  The more they're on TV the more students that matriculate.  The more students the more money, the more money the more athletic potential.  The more they get from donors.  High schools and middle schools get a great deal of prestige from Athletics for some unknown reason.  The average person cannot name which school was last years high school state champ unless it was your school.  The kids care so much about winning district in middle school, but who cares.  It is no great predictor of Division 1 success or professional potential.  Who cares?  Almost everyone does.  If the money is to indicate interest then teachers, parents, students, voters, and everyone else cares who wins.

    So...everyone is wrong.  Especially in the school setting.  Athletic programs were invented between the world wars and especially after WWII to teach discipline and athletic ability to a large swath of society.  Our schools are failing in this.  Football is failing in this.  Football creates prima donnas who don't listen or respect, do not achieve in the classroom.  Coaches are trying to get players to play whether they pass or not.  Coaches are leaning on admin and teachers to pass students so they can play.  There are reasons for kids to play, to learn discipline and respect, to work off some excess energy, to have an outlet for aggression and even corporal punishment.  But it should always be subservient to education.  Students who cannot read and do math on level shouldn't be double blocking athletics, but reading and math.  

    Athletics are therefore beneficial, but must serve the school.  Athletics must prepare boys and girls for all futures rather than a future in professional sports.  So in my charter school there will be no sports against other schools.  I think organizing games within the school will be much cheaper, will tamp down any fame that students may achieve for a couple of touchdowns on Friday night.  Basketball played within a single school will allow many students of varying skill levels to make an impact.  It is terrible that so many students don't play any sports and then they don't have any athletic activity in their boring PE class.  The Gym teacher doesn't push this class, many times because they cannot be useful to them on a team.  

    I know there are some students who come to school for sports.  I know there are some students who achieve in the classroom in order to play on the team although that number is shrinking.  To them, I think this could be even better than the system we have now.  If games are played daily at school among students then there is always the opportunity to achieve and play.  Because many students also practice in order to play.  Let them practice for half a class and then play everyday, there are too many, most schools, who are so business, they rarely scrimmage.  That is also bad for kids.  But what if a scrimmage isn't good enough, and what if two or three students dominate the games?  Play a bigger game after school.  Have a blue team and a red team within your school.  Trade players to resist factions.  And believe it or not, there are a lot of dominate players in intermural sports.

NO PASS NO PLAY

    I have a student named E.  He's tall, like 6'1 which is tall for an 8th grader.  I've never seen him play basketball, but he seems like he'd be good at least on defense with his size and apparent agility.  First day of school he said, he wanted to be a coach, a player, or a soldier.  He never talks out of turn, but he doesn't work.  He doesn't seem to care to turn work in.  The young boy would benefit from failing in class, because he needs to realize why he needs to perform in well in class.  But I truly wish he could figure that out without failing a nine weeks.  If he would play outside of UIL and on the school team, then he could sit out a day or a week, because faculty told him he couldn't play for a short period of time.  Not three weeks, or six weeks, or a unfigurable term that no one can figure out in UIL which is arbitrary.  The punishment, the consequences, should fit the crime.  E and others should receive swifter, simpler, more direct consequences for misbehavior, or lack of effort in the classroom.

COACHES

    In many middle schools there are 9 coaches.  Four for the boys, four for the girls, and one more for tennis or golf.  When I was a kid, 2 coaches coached 7th grade football, and 2 coached 8th grade football.  Now four coach 7th in the morning and the same four coach the 8th in the afternoon.  This is unwise.  Our coaches are becoming less educators and more coaches.  When these programs started 60 and 70 years ago there was a single coach for all the intramural sports and PE.  That is also unwise, coaches can't have impact on too many students.  That is why there should be more teacher coaches not less.  How many teachers could be utilized to coach a single class?  Two teacher coaches per period one man, one woman now there are 14 to 16 teacher coaches.  Who has the most authority in the classroom?  Teacher coaches.  Who are the most beloved after leaving school typically?  Teacher coaches.  When I have a behavior problem with an athlete who do we call?  Teacher coaches.  Now there are no stipends which are trash anyway for coaches.  There are no students who are receiving special treatment because they're 'taking us to state.'  There are students who practice a wide range of athletic pursuits, with a wide range of skill and interest levels, taught by a wide variety of teachers who cannot help, but keep their main focus on education, because they only coach an hour, but also dole out some consequences, and positive rewarding activities to students who're achieving in the classroom.

READY FOR WHATEVER

    I think football is wrong for students.  It does hurt too much.  There is brain damage with every hit.  The linemen aren't getting exercise.  Concussions and broken bones are too common.  One of my favorite movies is Necessary Roughness.  Scott Bacula is a college Quarterback and he's 40.  There are two antagonists for the football team.  One is the Texas State, the other is their own dean.  He doesn't think that college's hard earned money should be used on the barbarity of football.  I watched it when I was young and hated that guy, but I agree with him as I get old enough to be the arm of the armadillos.  No football, yes basketball, yes track, yes soccer, no hockey, yes relays and cross training, yes hiking, yes boxing with gear and hitting bags more than each other, yes field events including javelin.  Yes tag and wall ball, yes ping pong and cross country.  Yes gymnastics maybe swimming.  Yes wrestling yes volleyball.

TITLE NINE

    Girls will train with boys and will play in PE with boys.  When preparing for afterschool, more competitive games, there should be girls, boys, and co-ed.  

ANTS SPECIALIZE

    One hard fast rule for me is that I don't think kids should have to choose.  When I was part of a high school program as a student in the late 90's there was time to be an athlete and a nerd in the band or orchestra.  I think that is essential to the cultivation of students and societal members.  When I was part of a high school program as a coach (admittedly supporting role) in 2018 the time to be engaged in multiple activities was dead and dying out.  When I was in high school there were football players who pulled off their pads at halftime and marched with the band.  That is highly irregular these days.  Band members and football players both think they should specialize more to be ready for the next level.  This is a bad practice of our educational system.  It is tragic.  I think it should be reversed and it will be in my charter school.  Time will be alloted to make sure students can participate in multiple extracurriculars.  Will students be as competitive in state competitions?  No, thank God.