Interesting that abusive priests couldn't help themselves. Yep, a new study purports to relieve (absolve?) priests of their predations. It seems it was society's fault for not preparing priests for the '60s and '70s liberations. How great to never be responsible for anything! It won't be too long until nothing is anyone's fault. The schools have already started this crap with "Let's not point fingers" and "Let's move on."
Great radio yesterday AM on the drive to class! It was a lively debate between Frank Beckmann and Mitch Albom over the state's film company subsidies. I think Albom was right in that Beckmann overstated the "lack of transparency" (I detest that word!) in Albom's role in his movie being filmed here. It seemed Beckmann was grasping at straws to defend his main argument, that the state has no business picking and choosing what industries to subsidize with taxpayers' money. That said, I think Beckmann was right on the money, helping his argument with something like: If Albom is so committed to the film industry coming to Michigan--and staying here!--why doesn't he (and the other Hollywood-types purportedly behind giving state money to millionaire movie-makers) invest his own money here? Can't he and the other Hollywood-types produce the "226 jobs" for Michigan folks with their own money? Gee, could it be that the subsidies are losing causes, that they don't recover the money spent--not even close? And, aren't Albom and the Hollywood-types very wealthy men/women--dare I say multi-millionaires? Hmmm...smacks of the hypocrisy I rant and rave about all of the time.
Little league baseball again--yet another instance of coaches and umpires not knowing the rules. A runner was hit with a batted ball. Everyone seemed to know the batter was out, but not what to do with the runners. We ended up with the right situation, although I don't think the opposing coach was convinced I did the right thing. That he was ahead 20 to something probably helped. I wonder what would have happened had the game been close????? Also, I saw a first--one of our kids was thrown out stealing!!!!! Yep. The pitcher threw a strike. The catcher caught the ball and threw a perfect strike to 2B. The shortstop or second baseman caught the ball and made the tag. Of course, there would have been no play at all had the runner actually started when he could have, not hesitate on the way, and make an attempt to slide--there would have been no play; he would have been safe by a mile. But.... No doubt that would be used an a justification for stealing and against my arguments. Bah! I was a little more upset that an out was made and cost one of our batters a time at bat. What were we doing, down by 20 runs or so, trying to steal? Fortunately, we scored a bunch of runs the last inning so everyone got to bat at least two times. But, after the steal and out, I yelled, "No chances" to the base coaches. "Don't cheat our batters out of a time up." I wonder if any, other than Mike, knew what I was talking about. Maybe.... And, last, how does it happen, with a "draft" that the other team(s) get(s) three pitchers (at least, that's all we saw) who are far better than anyone we have? We got no runs and no hits the first four innings off the first two pitchers. The other coach put in another kid in the fifth and we scored about 6 or 7 runs on a bunch of walks and a few real hits. Then, after 6 or 7 runs (and I don't at all blame the other coach; I would have done it, too), he took out the third kid and put in a fourth who struck out the next two or three batters--who had no chance to hit the guy. Hmmm....
Still curious at how the media give Obama a free pass, even after all this time. He is so very narcissistic. It's all about him, "I," "me," "mine." He epitomizes those who grew up in the 70s and 80s. Can you imagine what the media would do with another President, say a Republican, who exhibited the same degree of self-centeredness? I don't understand the infatuation the media has with the guy, not at all.
And, last, how can the White House invite some gangsta rapper to the White House, one who has, apparently, a lot of anti-cop lyrics in his, ahem, "music." It's cop-hating and even about killing cops--or so I understand. How can the Obamas do that? Imagine if Terry Jones was invited to the White House? "Don't be ridiculous, Ron!" Precisely.... And all during National Police Week.
Remember the Dutch editor, "I was too busy enjoying my freedom to do anything to protect it."
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Little League Baseball
God Bless those guys out there working with the kids playing ball. They could be home drinking beer, watching the boob tube, etc., but they're not. Good for them. But I have a few suggestions that might make the little league/youth baseball experience better.
First, I'd hold a coaching clinic for all of the coaches and their assistants. I'd first show them how to organize a practice--having infield and batting practice or scrimmages all of the time isn't how to run a practice. Drills, repetition with drills, within the context of game situations are needed. Coaches should be shown how to avoid kids just standing around watching. For instance, while a traditional infield practice is being held, breaking down into drills utilizing assistant coaches and, yes, taking dads out of the stands, can provide ten or more times the number of ground balls a kid will field. Hmmm...what will help a kid more from a practice, half a dozen ground balls or 20 or 30? And, with the individual drills, with dads, instruction can be provided on an individual basis--and without making the other kids stand and watch.
Second, I'd start the season later, two or three weeks later. It's too cold, too wet in early April for kids to be out there. Start at the end of April and move the season's start back a few weeks. Yes, that would entail going later, maybe to the 4th of July, but so what? Vacations? If parents know in advance, they can make plans for that. If there is a conflict, well, people can make choices. But the weather will be better. (I was talking with an old coach I worked with and we remembered, at the high school, having an infield practice in the gym, with three balls going at once! Imagine how many repetitions each fielder had then!)
Third, I'd hold a clinic about rules. Both umpires and coaches would have to attend. Far too many don't know the rules. Here are just two I've seen already butchered in the first two weeks of the season. A pitch that bounces in front of the plate is not a dead ball! A batter can be hit with it and get awarded first base. A batter can hit the ball, too, putting it into play. It is not a dead ball! If, as umpires and coaches alike, have held (OK, I did win out on my arguments both times so far this season--but I wasn't a lunatic about it.) the pitch that bounces in front of the plate should then negate stealing--how can a runner steal on a pitch that results in a dead ball before the runner can take his lead-off (lead-offs are OK only after the pitch passes the plate)? And, how can a batter strike out on a pitch that bounces before reaching the plate; that is, how can a batter strike out on a dead ball? Quite obviously, he can't. But, the ball isn't dead. A runner going to first base can't turn "the wrong way." There is no "wrong way." A runner doesn't have to turn to the right. He can turn to the left and, if he does, he can't be tagged out for turning "the wrong way." Only, repeat, Only if the runner makes a distinct move to go to second can he be tagged out. That's plain and simple, yet.... Coaches and umpires don't know those rules. One might say they are "technical," but they really aren't. But even more basic is the rule on an overthrow, again misinterpreted by coaches and umpires alike in one game. And, there are more, but....
Fourth, there should be no stealing, maybe not until 11-12 years old. I know I've beat this horse for more than 25 years, to no avail. The reasons for it are ridiculous. The reasons against it are, frankly, reasonable. (Ironically, the coach of our opponents the last game, had he agreed to no stealing before the game, would have won the game, but didn't and didn't!) "Stealing" or, rather, just taking, bases detracts from teaching about the game, how to play defense.
Fifth, a random picking of players should be done. This "draft" doesn't seem to work. Why are there, every single year, teams far superior to others? Players picked randomly wouldn't always result in teams that win (or lose) by 20 runs every game. If it's a "house league," how do 6 or 7 of the so-called "travel" players end up on the same team? I suppose one might argue, "Well, some of the coaches come prepared to the draft!" But isn't there something wrong with a grown man who is out scouting 8- and 9-year olds for his next year's team?????
No doubt, like everything else, my ideas are "lonely." Nobody will listen. Nobody will ask me questions about them. Everybody knows everything. They all watch ballgames on television. They all played little league or maybe even junior varsity ball. So, they all know baseball--or so they think. Bologna/Baloney!
That said, once again, I am really enjoying working with Bopper and his team. It's great fun!
First, I'd hold a coaching clinic for all of the coaches and their assistants. I'd first show them how to organize a practice--having infield and batting practice or scrimmages all of the time isn't how to run a practice. Drills, repetition with drills, within the context of game situations are needed. Coaches should be shown how to avoid kids just standing around watching. For instance, while a traditional infield practice is being held, breaking down into drills utilizing assistant coaches and, yes, taking dads out of the stands, can provide ten or more times the number of ground balls a kid will field. Hmmm...what will help a kid more from a practice, half a dozen ground balls or 20 or 30? And, with the individual drills, with dads, instruction can be provided on an individual basis--and without making the other kids stand and watch.
Second, I'd start the season later, two or three weeks later. It's too cold, too wet in early April for kids to be out there. Start at the end of April and move the season's start back a few weeks. Yes, that would entail going later, maybe to the 4th of July, but so what? Vacations? If parents know in advance, they can make plans for that. If there is a conflict, well, people can make choices. But the weather will be better. (I was talking with an old coach I worked with and we remembered, at the high school, having an infield practice in the gym, with three balls going at once! Imagine how many repetitions each fielder had then!)
Third, I'd hold a clinic about rules. Both umpires and coaches would have to attend. Far too many don't know the rules. Here are just two I've seen already butchered in the first two weeks of the season. A pitch that bounces in front of the plate is not a dead ball! A batter can be hit with it and get awarded first base. A batter can hit the ball, too, putting it into play. It is not a dead ball! If, as umpires and coaches alike, have held (OK, I did win out on my arguments both times so far this season--but I wasn't a lunatic about it.) the pitch that bounces in front of the plate should then negate stealing--how can a runner steal on a pitch that results in a dead ball before the runner can take his lead-off (lead-offs are OK only after the pitch passes the plate)? And, how can a batter strike out on a pitch that bounces before reaching the plate; that is, how can a batter strike out on a dead ball? Quite obviously, he can't. But, the ball isn't dead. A runner going to first base can't turn "the wrong way." There is no "wrong way." A runner doesn't have to turn to the right. He can turn to the left and, if he does, he can't be tagged out for turning "the wrong way." Only, repeat, Only if the runner makes a distinct move to go to second can he be tagged out. That's plain and simple, yet.... Coaches and umpires don't know those rules. One might say they are "technical," but they really aren't. But even more basic is the rule on an overthrow, again misinterpreted by coaches and umpires alike in one game. And, there are more, but....
Fourth, there should be no stealing, maybe not until 11-12 years old. I know I've beat this horse for more than 25 years, to no avail. The reasons for it are ridiculous. The reasons against it are, frankly, reasonable. (Ironically, the coach of our opponents the last game, had he agreed to no stealing before the game, would have won the game, but didn't and didn't!) "Stealing" or, rather, just taking, bases detracts from teaching about the game, how to play defense.
Fifth, a random picking of players should be done. This "draft" doesn't seem to work. Why are there, every single year, teams far superior to others? Players picked randomly wouldn't always result in teams that win (or lose) by 20 runs every game. If it's a "house league," how do 6 or 7 of the so-called "travel" players end up on the same team? I suppose one might argue, "Well, some of the coaches come prepared to the draft!" But isn't there something wrong with a grown man who is out scouting 8- and 9-year olds for his next year's team?????
No doubt, like everything else, my ideas are "lonely." Nobody will listen. Nobody will ask me questions about them. Everybody knows everything. They all watch ballgames on television. They all played little league or maybe even junior varsity ball. So, they all know baseball--or so they think. Bologna/Baloney!
That said, once again, I am really enjoying working with Bopper and his team. It's great fun!
The High Cost of Low Teachers' Salaries
I was sent an article from the NYT about "The high cost of low teachers' salaries" and was asked what I thought.
I have conflicting/conflicted thoughts.
I think the general tenor of the message, "the planners" are the problem, is right on the money. Administrators are the biggest, but not the sole, hindrance to quality education. As I've maintained, they don't know what rigorous, quality education entails or they lack the integrity/courage to implement and support it.
Teachers are also a major problem. I agree with the article, that more top students need to be recruited for teaching. That means those who've been through the rigors (ringer?) of quality education. As noted in many places, today's teachers are most often those who've been through a joke of education--the education schools (and there's an oxymoron if there ever was). What teacher doesn't laugh at the stupid "educatiion" courses taught by often equally stupid instructors? I had two education courses, over the course of two masters degrees in education, that were somewhat rigorous--hold on to that word, "somewhat." In one of them, other students complained to the dean of the school of education (I was told this by the instructor, now dead) about the standards to which they were being held. Now consider, these were already teachers and they complained that the instructor wouldn't accept papers that had incorrect spelling (he actually, without naming the student, pointed out the "education" was misspelled, not once, but several times and differently misspelled each time!), no ideas, etc. The class period after he returned the papers, he asked for them back to "regrade." He didn't explain why, but, since I hadn't brought my paper, I asked him why after class in his office. We had started a running conversation about a favorite author of both of ours (Chaim Potok) and several of the themes in his books. This was when he explained what the dean ordered him to do. How pathetic! But, let me continue....
I've considered teaching and education a lot. There are few, very very few, great/outstanding teachers. I had a conversation with a school person just a few weeks ago. Amazing, from a school person (and we all know they rarely, very very rarely, have anything bad to say about fellow teachers), in an entire building of maybe several dozen educators (maybe a few more), only one was labeled "outstanding." Only a couple of others were called "good." More than a few were not. Hey, if we listen to the teachers' unions, to teachers themselves, everyone is a great teacher, a master teacher. Garbage! Only a slim handful are great. And not many more are good. But, here's where I've had a change of view over the past few years--most are serviceable. That is, they are not great and perhaps not even good, but they can be effective. (Not everyone can be Roberto Clemente and, besides, the Valmy Thomases--who? that's my point--are needed, too.) Still, I think more than most people, many teachers deserve to be working elsewhere. Now, how to make them effective?
That's much more problematic. Let the "planners," that is, the administrators teach them? That's the path to continued doom. The education schools promise an equally dismal result. I have some ideas, but who will honestly recognize the "great" teachers who should be showing the way? We all remember, when I was working, who the administrators picked to give staff presentations, who were chosen as mentors, indeed, what teachers later became administrators!!!!! As one I talked to the just the other day alluded, "Why in the world wouldn't a principal take advantage of having someone like," well, a piece of mung like me? Enough said.
OK, I'll toot my horn here (and I still maintain I'm honest enough to recognize and realize when I'm pretty good and when I'm not so hot.). Teachers of history should have been required to sit in my first two classes last week. At MHS, I should have been showing the history dept (not those who were so designated) what and how to teach. Yes, I would have wanted more money, esp toward the end, while the lousy people worked (that is, tried to show how and what to teach) for free. But, as you may not know, some of my buddies and I did work for free an awful lot early on--much, much more so than some of the lame-brained, do-nothing administrators who complained about "bitching all the time." It was how I was treated by those lame-brained, do-nothing, dishonest administrators that changed my mind to demand pay for extra work. (as a footnote, Thur in class this last week was one of those "not so hot" days.)
There are some smart people out there who and and do tell how to teach, showing the way(s). Some have written a book, Teaching: What We Do, written by a dozen or so Amherst professors. The essay by my physics prof should be required reading for every teacher and every administrator regardless of discipline. Of course, it won't be.
Paying more money doesn't work. It hasn't attracted better people, but worse people. Lazy, stupid people can become teachers and make more money than elsewhere. The stats may be deceiving on commensurate pay. "Equivalent degrees?" Remember, I still maintain that most degrees in education are fake, not real. Now, of course, many other degrees are also hardly ones to brag about. Look at the lack of standards our colleges and universities have today--the mortgages of the '70s' and '80s' expansions have to be paid!--we can't be flunking students out of school and still pay the bills. And the salary numbers stun me, too. Maybe $65K isn't a lot of money, but I think it is. I seem to see a lot of school parking lots with SUVs, nice neighborhoods with residents who are teachers, teachers who take European vacations, etc. Call me a Luddite, but I don't see any inherent right to have a large-screen TV just because one is a teacher. How much money is enough and, after all aren't teachers there "for the kids?" At least that's what is repeated again and again and again.... Administrators make far too much money; there's no justification for what they make--none!
Why do all teachers make the same salaries? Why should the teachers who turn off the lights every day and show movies get the same as those who lecture, engage in seminar-type activities, assign essays, etc.? And, why should those who merely assign the questions at the ends of chapters, give the tests from the teacher hand/workbooks get paid the same as those who actually think up relevant and more individual work? Frankly, they shouldn't. And administrators who can't or won't differentiate between these types shouldn't be administrators.
I have more ideas, but nobody wants to listen to them--either they don't really care or they are afraid of facing reality, the truth about education and those who are administrators and teachers. Even politicians and the media-types who call for "reform" because they are "outraged" don't listen. That's because either they really aren't "outraged" or they are stupid or cowardly.
(Funny how teachers are expected to fail students who deserve to fail, but no one has the guts to "fail," that is, fire, teachers who aren't up to snuff. Of course, what "snuff" has become is bobbleheading, even at the stupid stuff.)
The article had some good ideas, but they really need to be parsed. A lot of teachers and administrators certainly won't like my ideas, but that's why the ideas are "lonely."
There maybe some typos and other tech errors, but my computer or the blog site won't let me do some of the things I want to do.
I have conflicting/conflicted thoughts.
I think the general tenor of the message, "the planners" are the problem, is right on the money. Administrators are the biggest, but not the sole, hindrance to quality education. As I've maintained, they don't know what rigorous, quality education entails or they lack the integrity/courage to implement and support it.
Teachers are also a major problem. I agree with the article, that more top students need to be recruited for teaching. That means those who've been through the rigors (ringer?) of quality education. As noted in many places, today's teachers are most often those who've been through a joke of education--the education schools (and there's an oxymoron if there ever was). What teacher doesn't laugh at the stupid "educatiion" courses taught by often equally stupid instructors? I had two education courses, over the course of two masters degrees in education, that were somewhat rigorous--hold on to that word, "somewhat." In one of them, other students complained to the dean of the school of education (I was told this by the instructor, now dead) about the standards to which they were being held. Now consider, these were already teachers and they complained that the instructor wouldn't accept papers that had incorrect spelling (he actually, without naming the student, pointed out the "education" was misspelled, not once, but several times and differently misspelled each time!), no ideas, etc. The class period after he returned the papers, he asked for them back to "regrade." He didn't explain why, but, since I hadn't brought my paper, I asked him why after class in his office. We had started a running conversation about a favorite author of both of ours (Chaim Potok) and several of the themes in his books. This was when he explained what the dean ordered him to do. How pathetic! But, let me continue....
I've considered teaching and education a lot. There are few, very very few, great/outstanding teachers. I had a conversation with a school person just a few weeks ago. Amazing, from a school person (and we all know they rarely, very very rarely, have anything bad to say about fellow teachers), in an entire building of maybe several dozen educators (maybe a few more), only one was labeled "outstanding." Only a couple of others were called "good." More than a few were not. Hey, if we listen to the teachers' unions, to teachers themselves, everyone is a great teacher, a master teacher. Garbage! Only a slim handful are great. And not many more are good. But, here's where I've had a change of view over the past few years--most are serviceable. That is, they are not great and perhaps not even good, but they can be effective. (Not everyone can be Roberto Clemente and, besides, the Valmy Thomases--who? that's my point--are needed, too.) Still, I think more than most people, many teachers deserve to be working elsewhere. Now, how to make them effective?
That's much more problematic. Let the "planners," that is, the administrators teach them? That's the path to continued doom. The education schools promise an equally dismal result. I have some ideas, but who will honestly recognize the "great" teachers who should be showing the way? We all remember, when I was working, who the administrators picked to give staff presentations, who were chosen as mentors, indeed, what teachers later became administrators!!!!! As one I talked to the just the other day alluded, "Why in the world wouldn't a principal take advantage of having someone like," well, a piece of mung like me? Enough said.
OK, I'll toot my horn here (and I still maintain I'm honest enough to recognize and realize when I'm pretty good and when I'm not so hot.). Teachers of history should have been required to sit in my first two classes last week. At MHS, I should have been showing the history dept (not those who were so designated) what and how to teach. Yes, I would have wanted more money, esp toward the end, while the lousy people worked (that is, tried to show how and what to teach) for free. But, as you may not know, some of my buddies and I did work for free an awful lot early on--much, much more so than some of the lame-brained, do-nothing administrators who complained about "bitching all the time." It was how I was treated by those lame-brained, do-nothing, dishonest administrators that changed my mind to demand pay for extra work. (as a footnote, Thur in class this last week was one of those "not so hot" days.)
There are some smart people out there who and and do tell how to teach, showing the way(s). Some have written a book, Teaching: What We Do, written by a dozen or so Amherst professors. The essay by my physics prof should be required reading for every teacher and every administrator regardless of discipline. Of course, it won't be.
Paying more money doesn't work. It hasn't attracted better people, but worse people. Lazy, stupid people can become teachers and make more money than elsewhere. The stats may be deceiving on commensurate pay. "Equivalent degrees?" Remember, I still maintain that most degrees in education are fake, not real. Now, of course, many other degrees are also hardly ones to brag about. Look at the lack of standards our colleges and universities have today--the mortgages of the '70s' and '80s' expansions have to be paid!--we can't be flunking students out of school and still pay the bills. And the salary numbers stun me, too. Maybe $65K isn't a lot of money, but I think it is. I seem to see a lot of school parking lots with SUVs, nice neighborhoods with residents who are teachers, teachers who take European vacations, etc. Call me a Luddite, but I don't see any inherent right to have a large-screen TV just because one is a teacher. How much money is enough and, after all aren't teachers there "for the kids?" At least that's what is repeated again and again and again.... Administrators make far too much money; there's no justification for what they make--none!
Why do all teachers make the same salaries? Why should the teachers who turn off the lights every day and show movies get the same as those who lecture, engage in seminar-type activities, assign essays, etc.? And, why should those who merely assign the questions at the ends of chapters, give the tests from the teacher hand/workbooks get paid the same as those who actually think up relevant and more individual work? Frankly, they shouldn't. And administrators who can't or won't differentiate between these types shouldn't be administrators.
I have more ideas, but nobody wants to listen to them--either they don't really care or they are afraid of facing reality, the truth about education and those who are administrators and teachers. Even politicians and the media-types who call for "reform" because they are "outraged" don't listen. That's because either they really aren't "outraged" or they are stupid or cowardly.
(Funny how teachers are expected to fail students who deserve to fail, but no one has the guts to "fail," that is, fire, teachers who aren't up to snuff. Of course, what "snuff" has become is bobbleheading, even at the stupid stuff.)
The article had some good ideas, but they really need to be parsed. A lot of teachers and administrators certainly won't like my ideas, but that's why the ideas are "lonely."
There maybe some typos and other tech errors, but my computer or the blog site won't let me do some of the things I want to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
