WHY NOT? #10 - MY 401K AND SHORT-TERM PAIN


Since this upcoming Monday is Tax Day, let's continue on that theme for this week.  

My taxes are complicated, like solving a 10 sided Rubix Cube while blindfolded complicated.
 
Let me explain, or at least try to.

Scott Lang Leadership is an LLC (Limited Liability Company) that files quarterly as an S-Corp with returns due on March 15th. 

Scott Lang, the S-Corp, pays Scott Lang, the employee, a W2 wage - it is my salary (and I deserve a raise).

 These earnings pass on to my personal taxes via a K-1 flow-through using a W2 and are combined with Be Part of the Music and Music FUNdations using Schedule C for my personal returns. This part of my returns are due on April 15th.

Last week, while preparing my taxes, my accountant and financial planner struggled to agree on how to interpret my 401K. It turns out that our tax code is more like a musical score than a textbook. Every conductor and financial person interprets it differently. 

One such area that is open to interpretation is retirement accounts. As a solopreneur, I have an independent 401K, which allows me to contribute both as an employee and an employer. The difference? Taxes. 

For those unaware, there are two types of taxes when dealing with retirement accounts: short-term and long-term, and the difference is significant.

 Musically speaking, short-term capital gains taxes resemble a Rick Astley tune. Its life span and time on the charts are less than one year, so the taxman, hoping to deter Rick from repeating it, takes a more significant chunk of the profits. Now you understand the muse for Never Gonna Give You Up.

Long-term capital gains taxes are more like a Copland Symphony—classics that have withstood the test of time (longer than a year). So the taxman, wanting more of this type of thinking, takes a smaller chunk of the earnings, making Aaron want to Hoe Down.

The difference lies in the duration of ownership—short-term gains (under one year) are subject to higher tax rates than long-term gains.

Last week, I proffered that tax codes are as much about behavior modification as revenue generation. I stand by that. By taxing long-term capital gains at a much lower rate, the government is incentivizing you to save your money, and rely less on them. Win-win. 

The lesson learned? Short-term matters, but long-term matters more for you and our country.

 In education, we favor the short-term over the long-term by focusing on:

  • daily/weekly attendance

  • Individual class grades

  • GPAs

  • Single-game wins and losses

  • SAT/ACT scores

  • College acceptance rates

  • Graduation rates

In music, we aren't much better as we focus on:

  • Our next rehearsal

  • Our next concert

  • Our next contest

  • Individual chair placement

  • Next year's incoming class/enrollment

  • Number of all-region/all-state kids

Yes, all of these matter, but they are short-term (under a year) and do not favor a long-term look at the value proposition of (music) education.

As an advocate who understands the value of participation in music, I know the numbers, but they are mostly short-term. What if we studied and understood the long-term impacts of participating in school music programs. For instance, what if we knew the effect of music in the following areas:

  • Lifetime marriage & divorce rates

  • Career types and duration

  • Lifetime income differential

  • Number of college degrees

  • Volunteer hours

  • Voting rates

  • Days spent incarcerated

  • Days spent unemployed

  • And so much more

I would also be interested to know more about the quality of that life, such as:

  • Mental health

  • Happiness

  • Unhealthy behaviors

  • Drug and alcohol dependency

  • Vacation/travel

  • Number of languages spoken

We want all young people to lead happy, prosperous, and productive lives. However, to fully understand music's impact on a child's life, our tax code shows us the right way to think about it. Short-term matters, but long-term matters more.

We need to study the entire life of someone who has participated in a school music program and value the long-term gains more than the short-term ones. 

Why not?

 

WHY NOT? #9 - THE NERDS AND THE BEES

After almost two decades of colony collapse and years of inexplicably clean windshields, our eco-friendly flying friend is making a comeback. And that has people buzzing. 

Last week, the new numbers from the latest Census of Agriculture (when the government counts everything animal and agricultural two-by-two) showed that America's honeybee population has flown to an all-time high.

According to the report, since an inexplicable and precipitous decline in 2007, the United States has added almost a million bee colonies in the past five years, hitting a new high of 3.8 million hives. Bees are now the fastest-growing livestock segment in the country.

Simply stated, honeybees are BACK, and that is some sweet news!

Why are they back, and where did these swarms come from? The answers are as informative as they are interesting. Let's start with the latter, as it will explain the former.

In studying the data, much of the resurgence came in just one state: Texas. Since 2012, the Lone Star State has gone from having the sixth-most hives in the country to being so far ahead of anyone else that it out-bees the bottom 21 states combined. Further data analysis shows that the most significant increases came in north Texas, a region not traditionally considered a honeybee hotbed. We can thank one man for this.

When you meet Dennis Herbert, it is clear that he is not a political mover and shaker. Herbert, a retired wildlife biologist, boasts no fancy connections and drops no names. Despite lacking training or experience, he headed to the Texas State House dressed in blue jeans, a button-down shirt, and a sweat-stained ball cap and laid out a simple hypothetical.

In an article in the New York Times, Mr. Herbert describes the situation in the following way:
"You own 200 acres on the other side of the fence from me, and you raise cotton for a living. You get your ag valuation and cheaper taxes on your property. I have 10 acres on the other side of the fence and raise bees, and I don't receive my ag valuation. And yet my bees are flying across the fence and pollinating your crops and making a living for you, and I just never thought that quite fair."

In 2012, the Herbert hypothetical gave rise to a new law: if you keep five or more hives for five years on a five-acre (or larger) plot of land, you qualify for agricultural tax breaks. Over the next few years, all 254 Texas counties adopted similar bee rules.

 The key to reviving this eco-saving insect wasn't changing environmental codes but tax codes.

In under two weeks, Americans will participate in the annual rite of wealth transfer, known as filing their taxes. They say death and taxes are the only certainties in life, and you can only put off one.

At its most elemental level, taxes are about revenue generation. Just as important, taxes are about mass behavioral change. Think about it. Do you want more people to:

  • Stop smoking?

  • Drive less?

  • Drink less?

  • Save more?

  • Donate to charities?

Additionally, do you want businesses to:

  • Bring jobs to your city?

  • Invest in research and development?

  • Hire more people?

  • Give back to the community?

The answer to all of this and more lies in our tax code. It's simple: we incentivize behaviors we like and de-incentivize those we don't.

It seems pretty straightforward. 

So, following the lead of Mr. Herbert, I have a simple hypothetical of my own for you to ponder upon. 

(Imagine me in cowboy attire and with a Texas drawl.)

"You got 2000 kids on the other side of the fence from me, and you raise students for a living. You get a STEM valuation at cheaper costs on your side. I have 200 kids on the other side of the fence and raise good kids, and I don't receive my valuation. And yet my students are flying across the fence and helping create a good school and making a living for you, and I just never thought that quite fair."

So, I suggest we make income gained from teaching (salaries) non-taxable. Tax-free like the honeybee.

 Think about it. Do you want to:

  • Reverse the decline of people becoming teachers?

  • Increase the number of applicants?

  • Increase the depth and experience of applicants?

  • Fill classrooms with only the best educators?

If you answered yes, let's follow the flight of our furry little friends. Change the tax code.

When it comes to music, I have always said, "I haven't found a problem yet that can't be made better with more kids." The same is true for teachers. More teachers lead to better teachers. Better teachers lead to better kids. So ask yourself, do you want:

  • More engaged students and parents?

  • Higher G.P.A.'s?

  • Less drugs and alcohol?

  • Fewer discipline issues?

  • More kids getting scholarships?

Don't develop a moral code; develop a tax code.

If we know music makes better kids, and better kids make for better schools, shouldn't we incentivize participation in music? Why not:

  • Make buying an instrument deductible?

  • Remove sales tax on music-related products?

  • Make lessons a write-off?

  • Credit time spent in after-school rehearsals?

Remember, taxes are about revenue generation and behavior modification. Yes, my proposal would reduce the government's income, which gets sticky, but look at what we would save. What would the cost-benefit be of needing fewer:

  • Administrators

  • Security guards

  • Discipline deans

  • Summer school teachers

  • Drop-out prevention coordinators

Additionally, what would the cost-benefit be of having more:

  • Engaged students

  • Efficient passing periods

  • Involved parents

  • High school graduates

  • College applicants

In short, the savings achieved by having better educators and more students involved in music FAR outpaces the revenue lost by incentivizing music teachers and students to participate.

If you are a tree-hugging liberal, you are filling the world with music. If you are a fiscal conservative, you are saving money and making better schools. WIN-WIN!

So, I say we follow the lead of our little friend, the bee, and make music teaching and music-making completely tax-free. 

 And, I'm not pollen your leg.

Why not?

Have a great week.

 

-Scott







© SCOTT LANG LEADERSHIP 2024 - all rights reserved







 

WHY NOT? #8 - LESSONS FROM THE TOOTH FAIRY

Delta Dental has been tracking tooth fairy trends for 26 years and is sounding the alarm regarding their (not sure which pronoun to use) fiscal viability.  

According to their annual survey, for the first time since 2019, our little friend is paying out less than in previous years. 

Specifically, the tooth fairy's average gift value for a single lost tooth dropped 6% to $5.84 from $6.23 last year. Want to know more? According to the latest study:

  • The survey found that the average value of a first tooth is $7.09, down from $7.29 in 2023.

  • The Northeast average was $6.87, up 12%, and surpassed the national average by more than $1.

  • The South dropped from $6.59 to $5.51 this year, under the national average.

  • The Midwest has the lowest value of a lost tooth at $3.63, a $2 and 36% drop from 2023.

  • Lost teeth in the West had the highest value at $8.54, a 37% increase from last year, according to the survey of 1,000 parents of children ages 6 to 12.

 How could the value of a tooth be so disparate depending on where you live? Are teeth in the Midwest somehow less valuable? Is there a glut of tooth inventory driving down the market? Are teeth in the West a more prized commodity?  Are overhead and personnel costs in fairy unionized states that much higher?

Given that the commodity is known, predictable, and can be depreciated over its seven-year lifespan, how do we not have a formal plan and budget for replacement?

I am not talking about teeth anymore. I am talking about instruments.

According to the State of Music Education Survey (SoME):

  • 55% of music teachers reported no budget support for instrument replacement.

  • 63% reported no budget support for repairs.

  • 77% reported no standard depreciation/replacement schedule for instruments.

  • 55% reported no standard depreciation/replacement schedule for uniforms.

  • 53% reported needing parent support, with 53% of their operating budget coming from parents.

  • Those with budgets reported per-pupil averages of just $21.00 for instrument repair and $46.00 for replacement.

To be clear, that means you will need eight or more years of a child in music to afford a typical uniform and two hundred students to be able to purchase one sousaphone.

How is this possible? Are we not a core curriculum? Do we not meet during the school day for credit? Don't schools have a responsibility to provide an appropriate learning environment? 

After all, we have standard replacement schedules for textbooks, buses, and football uniforms. And as long as we are talking about equity, I don't remember the science department ever having to hold a car wash to buy microscopes or Petri dishes or the math department asking parents to help pay for textbooks.

Similar to teeth, we have a good idea of the life cycle of a tuba, timpani, and trumpet. These costs are not unexpected. Like buses, we have a good idea of a proper maintenance schedule for a bassoon, bass drum, and bass clarinet.

Why is there no standardized budget for music?
Why is it so different in different places?
Why is music being treated differently than other curricula?
Why is it not annualized so we can plan long-term?

I am not being unreasonable or asking for an excessive amount. I am simply saying that providing an appropriate and equitable learning experience for every child requires an appropriate and equitable set of resources.

Instead, we plan short-term, hoping to avoid necessary and routine expenses, with no long-term plan or financial stability.

So we run car washes, sell cookie dough, and start GoFundMe pages. Despite our best care and diligent maintenance, you will incur these costs if you have young people who use their instruments. As responsible adults, we should have a consistent, standardized, and equitable plan so all children have the same joyful experience.

Why not?

Oh, I am talking about the tooth fairy now.

Have a great week everyone.

Scott

WHY NOT? #6 - AI 4 PD!

I write a lot. And I mean a lot.

In addition to this article, I need to finish and proofread ten forward-facing pieces of content, a marketing campaign, and a press release. I also need to write the text for the four videos I need to shoot tomorrow.

As I said, I write a lot. And despite all of my years of practice, apparently, I am bad at it.

Don't believe me? Read below.
I know what you are thinking - "Scott, I find your prose effortless, witty, insightful, and a joy to read!" 

Well, someone would beg to differ! And their name is Grammarly.

As I said, I write a lot. When coupled with a lack of time and personal shortcomings, the volume and demand can sometimes mean that my writings require... 

Let's call it refinement.

So, before sending anything out, I run it through my editor and a writing software called Grammarly. Over the years, the two of them have saved you from reading far too many guffaws,  and me countless hours of work.

At least, I thought they were countless. Apparently, Grammarly does some counting in addition to editing.

Yesterday, I received an update from Grammarly - a report card of sorts, and my grades were not good. I did not ask for their review, but they sent it anyway. It was a bit jarring and insulting to read.  The header graphic is above.

Accurate? Well, yes, but I was still crushed.

Seriously? They have the never to tell me every mistake I have ever made? That's my children's job! And keeping score is for spouses. Since you are neither, and I didn't ask for your opinion, how about you suck on a power surge!

To its credit, Grammarly tried to be nice. The subject line of the email read, "Prepare to be impressed." However, Grammarly was clearly not (impressed). The first line of the analysis was, "Well done! You were more productive than 77% of Grammarly users." Seriously, 23% write more than me? Is James Patterson on here? James Jordan?

And it quickly went down hill after that.  

According to this AI interloper, in the past week alone I have received over 1,000 suggestions for corrections—some of which I ignored. It also noted that my accuracy rate was in the lower half of Grammarly users, and I used more "unique" ( I think they mean "made-up") words than 88% of my more author-minded peers.

So I'm dumb, talk to much, and make stuff up.

 

Ouch, that hurt. True? Yes! But, did you have to use numbers and everything? Numbers are why I don't step on scales, do my taxes, or take IQ tests.

 

But, G-man (I assigned Grammarly a gender, since it's an arrogant jerk, we can all agree it's likely a man, and plays the trumpet) didn't take his foot off the gas there. He pressed the pedal to the medal.

 

Want to know my top five mistakes? I DIDN'T - but you guessed it, they shared them with me them anyway. According to jerkface, they are (in order):

 

1.    Missing periods
2.    Incorrect use of quotation marks 
3.    Missing commas in compound sentences
4.    Missing closing punctuation 
5.    Unnecessary ellipsis 

 

Ok, #3 is fair. And if were being honest, how "misuse of semi-colon" didn't make the list is beyond me, because I have NO idea when to use that sucker.

 

But ellipse? Who doesn't love an ellipse? It's such a valuable and playful punctuation mark.

 

After the initial shock faded, I began to see a parallel between my new nemesis and myself—the parallel between Grammarly's job and ours. We both make suggestions to help others fix things that are wrong.

 

Think about your last rehearsal. We're most of your comments negative? Were you coming from a place where your knowledge exceeded others? Did you offer an opinion that wasn't asked for? Did you make lots of corrective suggestions? 

In my household, we call that Tuesday, or any other day.


What if we counted them all the way Grammarly did? What would we discover? For instance, yesterday, how many:

 

Wrong notes did you fix?

Wrong rhythms did you correct?

Articulations did you change?

Behaviors did you modify?

Adjustments did you make?



And if we're brutally honest, how many:



Intonation problems did you miss?

Bad postures did you ignore?

Minutes did you waste?

Words did you needlessly use?

Negative comments did you say?

Similar to my experience with Grammarly, the results would likely be jarring, but it does bring up an interesting idea.

Why not let AI assess our instruction?

We're not far from it. For all I know, we may already be there. If we were not, at the pace AI is developing, we're not far from it. So let me ask it again: Why not have AI assess us, not just at the end of the day or class period, but in real time?

As I write this, Grammarly is giving me feedback in real time. What if, as we taught, we received instantaneous feedback on our performance as teachers?

We're closer than you think. After all, we already use tuners, metronomes, and midi-files. We have tone generators, electronic drill, and music assessment software.

"But Scott, a computer can't assess the  tone of a teacher's voice and understand feelings."

Wrong! 

According to Grammarly, my writing is admirable, curious, personal, informal friendly, and not at all assertive!

Those qualities are EXACTLY what I am going for in the Why Not series and my writing in general.

NAILED IT!

If AI can comprehensively assess our students and our performance, shouldn't we consider using this? Don't we want that information? Aren't we trying to improve our ensembles and refine our teaching skills? As painful as it is, shouldn't we get ongoing feedback that helps us to hone our craft?

What would yesterday's report say?

How would you use it?

What grade would you get?

How would it make you feel?

Would it be helpful or hurtful?

What would it say about who we are and how we teach?

I don't know your answers, but I do know that it would be more informative than any of my other evaluations.

 Should AI be doing our PD?

Why not?

Scott 

p.s. I was going to include a snarky comment about Grammarly spell-checking its name, but I was misspelling it. UGH! That's not going to help my accuracy score.

 

© SCOTT LANG LEADERSHIP 2024 - all rights reserved


 

"WHY NOT?" #5 - END THIS MUSIC EDUCATION DEGREE

This is #5 in a series that rethinks music education by asking, "Why Not?"


After almost every workshop, a student will approach me and share their desire to be a music teacher. Whether they are sharing it in hopes of affirmation or to declare their aspiration, I always share the same response:

"Other than raising two children, getting a degree in music education is the hardest thing I have ever done in my life."

It is a worthy thing indeed, but extraordinarily difficult, like opening a plastic blister pack blindfolded while folding a fitted sheet type of difficult. Likely, you are smarter than me and did not suffer the slings and arrows of music theory the way I did, but the evidence sides with me. I started with 136 music majors on day one of basic music theory and graduated four and a half years later with just three of them. Some may have made it in four years (not likely), while some may have graduated after me (maybe a couple). The rest? 

They fell by the wayside, dropped out, or just came to their senses and decided that was not the life for them.

Can you blame them? Ever wished you joined them?

I am unsure if the requirements for a degree in music education are rooted in teacher preparation or designed to weed out those who lack the fortitude, tenacity, and grit it takes to survive and thrive in this profession. Either way, it's doing its job. 

 Don't believe me? A typical bachelor's degree in the United States consists of 120 hours. My Bachelor's Degree in Music Education? One hundred and forty-six hours! And I did not change majors or take a single class that was not required for graduation.

Yep, the same degree my pals in the business school received required me to complete an extra year of college, adding time, expense, and strain they did not have to endure.

You are severely mistaken if you think the educational delta differential ends at credit hours. So for this e-zine, I dug up my transcript and discovered that as a part of my pathway to the podium, I attended:

  • Seventy-two classes (average degree is 40), averaging 2.02 credits (33% less than other classes).

  • An average of 17.5 hours a semester, plus summer school two summers.

  • Ten required classes that offered zero credits.

  • Twenty-six required classes meeting more than once a week for just a single credit.

  • Two years of marching band, meeting six days a week for one credit.

  • Five semesters of music theory, meeting five days a week for three credits.

  • Two hours of practicing a day, in addition to homework.

  • Two semesters of student teaching (a full-time job) for nine credits.

  • Ninenty-two night time or weekend performances/events.

All while working as a bartender to pay for my tuition.

I do not share this for your admiration or adoration, as I know that you endured the same things. We are kindred spirits in that way. So let me repeat, for me:

Getting a degree in music education is the second hardest thing I have done in my life.

In fact, to my way of thinking, getting a degree in music education makes you better at everything in your life. As a part of your job, you learn to:

  • Work with kids and adults. 

  • Speak publicly and write effectively.

  • Plan for the future, but think on your feet.

  • Manage millions of dollars in budgets, facilities, and equipment.

  • Hire, fire, and supervise adult and juvenile staff.

  • Analyze complex situations and adjust on the fly.

  • Receive feedback and constructive criticism from peers.

  • Create art and facilitate the steps needed to realize it.

And so much more. I genuinely believe that getting a degree in music education will make you a better person, parent, and anything else you decide to do with your life. At least it did for me.

I just don't think it should be a bachelor's - it should be a master's.

Why not eliminate the bachelor's degree and (for the exact same requirements/credits) award a master's degree? Think about it:

  • A master's degree is an additional thirty hours, twenty-six of which are completed.

  • I completed seventy-six classes, exceeding the requirements for a master's degree.

  • A undergraduate degree in music education is designed to be an extra eighteen months - similar to that a Master's.

  • I have real work experience over a year (student teaching).

  • If credits are awarded by the number of hours met, I would have over two hundred credits, equivalent to a doctorate. 

So, today, I am proposing to eliminate the Bachelor of Music Education degree and replace it with a Masters Degree.

 This would:

  • Provide an immediate pay bump for music educators.

  • Reward for increased workload and hours associated with the job.

  • Clearly and demonstrably demonstrate that this is a five+ year program.

  • Provide an immediate and permanent pay increase resulting in a lifetime benefit of over $150,000.

  • Help attract and retain more music teachers.

  • Reduce the time and financial demands of continuing education credits.

  • Elevate the status of the degree and our profession.

While we're at it - since my Masters Degree in Education Administration and Policy Studies left me just three classes and a dissertation short of my doctorate, I am also proposing that (since we already have a master's degree), when coupled with a dissertation, the current master's should be awarded as a doctorate.

The math associated with credit/classes/time adds up.

It saves students money and earns teachers more money.

It helps to attract and retain music teachers.

And, I believe is the right thing to do.

So, why not?

Have a great week, everyone.

Dr. Scott (see what I did there?)

 

p.s. The rules surrounding capitalization and the possessiveness of degrees are oddly specific and wildly inconsistent. I followed the rules as best as I understood them.

 

© SCOTT LANG LEADERSHIP 2024 - all rights reserved

Unsubscribe

BPOTM / SLL 505 S. CAMELLIA DRIVE Chandler, Arizona 85225 United States

 

Why Not #4 - Getting Rid of the Stink!

During the global pandemic, tens of millions of employees were sent to work from home without knowing if or when they would return.

Nearly four years later, uncertainty, variant strains, and the burden of child care meant that most of these remote employees were still working from home in some manner - and their employers would like them to return.

But the employees don't seem to be interested in returning.

Nearly four years later, uncertainty, variant strains, and the burden of child care meant that most of these remote employees were still working from home in some manner - and their employers would like them to return.

Are you looking for travel stipends? Work has got you covered. Complimentary meals and fancy coffee carts? Done! Free on-site child care and dry cleaning? Absolutely. For many employees, though, it's still not enough. One company has taken it to the next level. 

You say working in the office stinks? Well, this company aims to solve that problem as well. They are changing the way the office smells.

Since 2022, Hines, a commercial real estate company with skyscrapers worldwide, has developed a particular scent that they began quietly pumping into the HVAC system in Houston headquarters. This year, it is rolling out the fragrance in more than 20 other office buildings in Chicago, New York, London, and Delhi, India.

Companies already populate offices with sensory-stimulating designs such as greenery, ample natural light, and soothing white noise. Now, the office is getting a nose job.

Hines aims for aromatherapy to enhance worker well-being, explains co-CEO Laura Hines-Pierce. "Our mindset is, 'How can we reframe how people think about the office?'" says Whitney Bossin Burns, senior vice president of global client strategy at Hines. "If we can make it a place where people can associate positive memories with it, we need to do that in every possible realm."

"Each note was thoughtfully selected," she says, "to ensure that walking into a Hines space creates a sense of belonging." 

The company's signature scent took over a year to perfect and incorporates 35 ingredients, which are said to improve happiness and confidence, alleviate anxiety, fight fatigue, and help employees learn tasks faster.

Incentives, perks, and positive environments increase morale, engagement, and attendance. Why don't we use them in (music) education?

 Don't we want those same things for kids? Aren't all schools striving for increased happiness and engagement? Don't we want to lower anxiety and increase attendance? Don't we want kids to learn faster?

It seems to pass the sniff test to me.

As someone who has renovated two high schools, I can speak to how the environment (natural light, temperature, air quality) can significantly impact academic performance. Yet, we invest very little in building schools, and even less in maintaining them.

And what about the perks? What do we offer to entice and reward engaged, motivated, and successful (music) students to stay in the public school system? Everyone knows that these melody makers are the poster children for engagement and the model of attendance and performing academically better than their non-musical peers.

What are we doing to attract and retain our best and incentivize others to perform at similar levels? Why don't we invest in those who invest in the school? What if, as a reward to those who do and an incentive to those who don't, we offered music kids:

  • Free meals before rehearsals

  • Subsidies to cover gas for after-school events

  • First shot at scheduling future classes

  • Subsidies for reeds, sticks, strings and rosin

  • Flex scheduling

  • Early graduation

  • Better campus parking

  • Bonuses for making honor groups

  • Extra release periods

  • Free online courses to free up their schedule

  • Graduated diplomas

  • Free lessons

If we're being selfish, what's in it for the music educator who often works longer hours, more weekends and nights, and for little to no extra pay? How about:

  • Bonuses for increased enrollment

  • Stipends for summer work

  • Reimbursement for tuxedos and other equipment

  • Paid professional development

  • Meal reimbursement for night rehearsals

  • Upgraded office furniture

  • Marketing and administration support

  • Better busses for trips and games

  • Technology allowances

Or a thousand other things we could do for music students and teachers to achieve the results we want to achieve.  

Remember those remote employees (who receive salaries) still have to be incentivized with free food and coffee to come to work? Well, I have a kid who hates going to school so much that I have to bribe him with Chipotle. If they served over-stuffed burritos for lunch instead of slop, he might fight me to be first in the carpool lane.

People young and old want to enjoy their surroundings and get paid well for what they do - in money, grades, opportunities, friendships and many other ways. High school athletes are paid to play through Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals.

If we want to make our schools the best possible version of themselves, they have to attract and retain the best students. All of which is to say...

Why not "pay" the music kids?  Any why not incentivize music teachers to stay in the profession. That would definitely pass the sniff test for me - and you too!

Have a great week.

 

Scott

 

© SCOTT LANG LEADERSHIP 2024 - all rights reserved

 

 

Lottery Learnings and Why Not? #3

According to a recent report on NPR, one in eight Americans buy a lotto ticket every week. Additionally, statistics show that Americans spent $105.26 billion on lottery tickets last year, making it the most popular form of gambling in the U.S. 

This massive number is expected to double to $194.14 billion by 2025. That's a whole lot of scratch(ers)!

Despite the odds of winning being astronomically small (1 in 302.6 million, to be exact), every week, people across the country line up at local quick marts to purchase tickets in the hopes of scoring the Mega Millions jackpot. It defies all common logic. Under normal circumstances, no sane person would use their money with such a slight chance of return on investment. For context, before you win the Lottery, you're more likely to:

  • Be killed by a shark

  • Win an Olympic medal

  • Get struck by lightning

  • Be accepted into Harvard

  • Die from a bee sting

  • Become a movie star

Do those seem relatively plausible for an average American? Still thinking of buying a ticket? Okay, here are a few more (un)likely scenarios. You are more likely to:

  • Be fatally struck by a meteor

  • Become President

  • Survive a plane crash

  • Die by vending machine

  • Be canonized as a Saint

  • Have quadruplets

Yep, quadruplets. Heck, if you have four college tuitions to pay for, you NEED to win the Lottery - and as a parent of two boys, anyone with four infants already qualifies for Sainthood in my book. 

Death by vending machine? We may need more details on that, but back to the lotto.

As people shell out their sheckles and number their numbers, ticket holders fully understand and readily admit they know they're throwing their money away. And yet they buy. Why?

Dan Field, a therapist specializing in gambling, says, "The lottery holds such a prominent place in American culture because it gives people the opportunity to indulge in fantasies about how their lives could change if they win."

In other words, it provides hope.  

Hope for a better life and all of the promise it brings. Freedom from financial burdens. The ability to care for their families and loved ones. The ability to be unregulated and do what they want, when they want, how they want.

Yes, that is something we all dream about; however, in some places, we do more than dream. Despite being a ubiquitous hope, we participate in the Lottery at varying levels depending on where we live. The following five states spend more money on lottery tickets than anywhere else in America:

Florida        $9.08 Billion
New York    $8.59 Billion
California    $8.42 Billion
Texas           $8.10 Billion
Georgia       $5.88 Billion

Notice any similarities among the states listed above?

They all have very fine Music Education Conventions. 

That's what you noticed, right?

Okay, so we know these "go big or go home" states are like random games of chance. Let's see if they're all talk or if they really walk the lotto walk. 

What if these (and any other) states used a lottery to pick ensembles to perform at their State Conventions? 

Yep, I am talking about some person in formal wear, a machine with balls carrying school names, and a drum roll. That seems like Must-See TV to me. You know you would tune in, and so would I.

Why would we select based on chance and not performance criteria? For the same reason, the Lottery chooses winners based on chance - IT PROVIDES HOPE.

Let's go back to the things that are more likely to happen before you win the Lottery: becoming President, surviving a plane crash, death by vending machine, etc. 

That's right! They all have very fine Music Education Conventions. 

(That's what you noticed, right?)

For some music educators, the feeling of futility might be similar. They know that tomorrow will be the same as today. They expect that someone else will be selected. They understand that others are better suited or situated to be successful. They want to believe they are worthy, seen, and valued. People stand in line for lottery tickets and MEA concerts for the same reasons.

HOPE. 

They hope to be on that stage. They hope to play that level of literature. They hope to have that equipment, support, parent involvement, and lessons program. They hope to stand in front of a group that sounds like that and is honored by their colleagues.

They have HOPE.

In this way, the Lottery is better than music education because it offers equal opportunities to every person who plays, regardless of their location, age, or socio-economic status.

Music education chooses based on performance criteria that may be skewed based on school location, experience level, and amount of money. 

So, you can see where a music educator might feel better served to spend three dollars on a scratcher than three dollars mailing a recording of their group to a selection committee.

 

So I ask again, what would happen if we randomly chose performers for music education events?

Will some ensembles lack proper instrumentation? Likely.

Will the level of literature be reduced? Possibly.

Will some performances be different? Absolutely.


Let's also consider the possibility that:


Will forgotten programs will be remembered? Likely.

Will under-represented communities will be empowered? Possibly. 

Will more educators and students feel seen and heard? Absolutely.

We could choose at least some performing groups by Lottery. What would be the harm? Yes, we would see imperfect humans, led by an imperfect teacher, who give imperfect performances. Isn't that what (music) education is about?

Performing at a state or national conference is an honor and a deserving opportunity. Unlike the lotto, I don't think we are honoring or providing the same opportunities for everyone.

So, what do you say to a performance lottery? You might not win the Mega-Millions, but you might help them. 
Why not?

Have a great week, everyone. Jump on the FB group and share your thoughts.

-Scott

© SCOTT LANG LEADERSHIP 2024 - all rights reserved


 

Seizonas and Why Not #1

Picture the scene: all of your friends, family, and students (current and past) have gathered together to celebrate your career. As a part of the gathering, you listen to heartfelt tributes about how much you've meant to them. 

As a part of the gathering, you listen to heartfelt tributes about how much you've meant to them. 

They speak of seminal moments, formative experiences, and memorable performances. The evening is filled with laughter and tears as everyone remembers and celebrates the craziness of their musical experiences, and the impact it and you had on their lives.  

Some use it as a chance to say the things they wish they'd said to you earlier. Some use it as a chance to remember and reflect. While others opine on how their lives have changed because of a chance encounter with you, their music teacher.

This probably sounds like a beautiful evening and a joy-filled retirement gathering - something you have already experienced or perhaps are looking forward to.

What if there was one crucial difference? What if the person on the receiving end of this outpouring of love were not actually retiring? What if we created the event on an arbitrary date to pause, reflect, and celebrate the person(s), places, and events that shape our lives?

Celebrating a well-lived life is nothing new and happens with regularity at the end of a career or life. Why do we wait until something is over to celebrate it? Why don't we create milestones designed to have us take measure of our pursuits and celebrate with the ones we love? In short, why do we wait until the end of a career to celebrate it? Why not do it sooner?

It turns out some people don't.

According to a recent article in The Guardian, living funerals (also known as pre-funerals), are becoming more commonplace as they "offer a chance for people to say goodbye to their friends and families on their own terms and to celebrate their life while they are still alive."

Living funerals, also called seizenso, are not entirely new concepts and gained traction in Japan in the 1990s. The idea is that it takes the pressure off family members and friends to organize a funeral after someone has died. In 2019, 25,000 people took part in a living funeral.

Initially designed for the terminally ill so they could hear what would be said at their funeral, the idea of a living funeral is being more broadly embraced to help those of us living to face our mortality and truly embrace being alive.

I spent fifteen years in a classroom at three different high schools. Each experience was as unique and special as the students I taught. I loved all three experiences for very different reasons.

My first job was in East Los Angeles. I left after 14 months because I was homesick and lonely. Also, my dream job opened back home, where I would spend the next decade as the band director and eventually as a building administrator on the same campus. My final four-year stint in the classroom ended with a leave of absence to start my leadership business. I left my first position mid-summer, my second position to move 100 yards away, and my third position with the belief I would one day return.

These three very different experiences had one shared trait - they ended quietly, without fanfare, and no opportunity to say goodbye.

I didn't get a chance to tell my students how much they meant to me, and for me to hear what I might have meant to them. This was not the plan or by design; I was a victim of circumstance.

I missed the opportunity to celebrate, commiserate, and bring some closure. A seizenso is something I needed and wanted but didn't know about at the time. And I regret it. 

Teaching is hard. Teaching music is really hard. Teaching music in a politicized post-pandemic world? Well, I have no words. You need something to keep you going. You need to know that your efforts make a difference and have an impact. And you don't have to wait thirty-plus years to know it.

Our lives and careers are filled with milestones: contests, concerts, new students, new year, graduation, etc. Each presents an opportunity for a (mini) seizenso - a time to pause, reflect, and celebrate. It can be at a banquet, after-concert gathering, end-of-the-quarter exam, or a post-contest reflection. Just take the time to have the students write or speak about their journey and the impact music (and you) have had on their lives. 

You deserve the time and opportunity to celebrate others and to have others celebrate you. You deserve the space and grace to share and receive love from others. You deserve to laugh, cry, and remember why we do this crazy profession, and you shouldn't have to wait thirty years to do it.

Learn from my mistakes, host your own seizenso, and feel love and appreciation

Why not?

Have a great week, everyone.

Scott

Why Not?

Hey friend:,

We've known each other awhile now, so I think it's time I shared something with you.

I learn by speaking.

Think about that for a minute. Seems a bit backwards from what you might expect. If were being honest, most people and our entire profession are built on the belief that you learn by listening.

In this and other ways, I am discovering that I am unlike most people.

I am not sure if I can fully explain it, but it's as if ideas are locked inside me, and the only way to release or free them is to speak the words into the light of day. Only then can I decipher if the idea is actually a good or bad one. I don't need anyone else to hear it, I just need to say it. It took me a long time to understand this about myself, but everything made much more sense as soon as I did. 

I am sure that somewhere in a book about speaking, there are rules reminding me that as a "subject matter expert," I should parse my words and not share anything unless I have a reasonable level of certainty or assuredness that what I am saying is, in fact, true.

As someone who speaks for a living, the idea of speaking first and thinking second is, at best, counterintuitive; at worst, dangerous.

But that is how MY mind (and mouth) works.

I vet information in real-time. When thinking through ideas, I hear words coming out of my mouth, and process them as if I were hearing them from someone else for the first time. In fact, if you see me walking through an airport, you will likely see me having a full-on, out-loud conversation with myself, gesticulations included - all of which leaves others disturbed, and my family embarrassed.

This is not to say that I walk on stage or in front of a group and just "wing it." I definitely don't.

But, most of the long-form content in my presentations, books, and this blog started as a question or thought that (accidentally) eeked its way out on stage as a "What if?" Or, "Why not?" 

It turns out that I am not alone in thinking this way, as acclaimed New York Times best-selling author Daniel Pink (Drive, A Whole New Mind, The Power of Regret, etc.) has a new project called Why Not?

In collaboration with The Washington Post, Pink is authoring a year-long series designed to give America's imagination an adrenaline shot where he challenges us all to "Spend less time opining about who's right and who's wrong and more time imagining what's possible?"

 

So, for the next year, each week, he will offer a single idea — bold, surprising, maybe a bit jarring — for improving our country, our organizations, or our lives.

As an example, he lists some of his introductory questions, such as why not: 

  • Pay public school teachers a minimum salary of $100,000? 

  • Relocate the U.S. House and Senate to a different city every few years? 

  • Create a new job category for people over 65 to mentor young employees? 

  • Give presents on our birthdays rather than receive them?

As a fellow mental meanderer, I like the concept of why not. So, I joined Mr. Pink in this thought exercise, albeit with a music education bent.

Why not:

  • Require every student to have a music class every day?

  • Have all students teach private lessons?

  • Sight-read at every concert?

  • Have students learn multiple instruments before settling on one?

  • Have an SES multiplier/bonus at contest?

  • Have a contest on September 1st, and again on November 1st, and the group with the greatest point differential is the State Champion.

  • Pick ensembles randomly for MEA conventions?

  • Eliminate a Bachelor of Music Education in favor of a Masters Degree.

  • Make beginner instrumental rental a three-year minimum?

  • Ensure that the marching band gets a PE credit?

  • Have teachers regularly rotate between ELEM/MS/HS?

  • Require that every pop star advocate for music education?

  • Have a "music tax" that generates funds for advocacy?

I could go on. 

Like my friend Mr. Pink (we're not really friends), I have always enjoyed reimagining things in different ways and discussing it with colleagues. It is afterall, the purpose of this blog, and why I started writing it twenty years ago.

So...

For the remainder of this school year, taking a page from Daniel's playbook, (and perhaps a few of the bullet points above), I will ask/explore/and expound upon a new question weekly via this ezine. We can discuss via our Facebook group. It should be interesting.

Remember, the goal is not for you to agree or disagree with the premise, but to free your mind from "what is," to "why not? 

You likely have much bigger and better questions than me. So, how about you use the button below to shoot your questions my way so I too can join in the fun. The only person I have to talk to is Riley, my Golden Retriever. And all she cares about are tennis balls.

So use the buttons below to shoot me an idea, or continue the conversation next week.

SEND A "WHY NOT?"

BECOME A PATRON

Did you use one of the two buttons above? 

Why Not?

Have a great week!

 

Scott

p.s. Thanks to all my MEA friends in California and Colorado for their hospitality this past week. Ohio - wheels-down is 4:30 pm today. Texas, I am headed your way next week. If you see me at these or any other events, please make it a point to stop me and say hi!

The Last Repair Shop

Tucked away in a nondescript neighborhood in East Los Angeles, surrounded by 10-foot fences and razor-encased barbed wire, sits the Los Angeles Unified School District's central distribution hub. Among the encamped buildings is one of our country's most extensive and final remaining facilities of its type, the Instrument Repair Facility. The operation has been in continuous service since 1959 and is home to - and the healing place for the district's 80,000 plus musical instruments.

This obscure building and even more obscure profession recently came to the attention of veteran filmmakers Kris Bowers and Ben Proudfoot, who decided to tell their story after meeting the people and seeing their work. The Last Repair Shop is a moving tribute that shows how mending broken instruments can also mend broken souls.

The Last Repair Shop received a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Documentary just yesterday. It is a deserving nomination, to be sure.

"Some (kids) come from a place of love; some come from a place of dysfunction - you can fix the broken instrument, but you can't always fix the child. They can't be glued back together. We're doing it all for them, and I'm proud to be a part of it." 

Steve Bagmanyan. Shop Supervisor

My first teaching job was in East Los Angeles, just a few miles from this shop. Watching this documentary took me back there and reminded me that while ALL kids need music, some need it more than others.

I hope you can find time to watch it. You'll be glad you did.

 

Scott