05/17/2006
recits
You know, I really don’t like singing recits. They’re boring and unmelodic and it’s flat out hard to do them in a way that is interesting for the audience. They are like a transitional sentence. Necessary perhaps, but not art. They are the driveway for art. So what do I get stuck with? A bunch of recits. I mean, Mendelssohn had delusions of opera and since he couldn’t be successful at writing opera he turned an oratorio into an opera without costumes or setting. It’s just so much ornamentation.
But, Ok. I’m singing Mendelssohn. I can live with that. But I’m not going to roll my “R’s.” I don’t care what the conductor says. How pretentious is it to sing “Thither hide thee at Cherith’s brook” and roll the R in Cherith and the R in brook. I’m singing a recit for heaven’s sakes. I already sound like a dweeboid. If I have to roll my r’s I’m going to sound like a pretentious dweeboid. I have to sing the word “thither!” Isn’t that dumb enough?
19:00 Permalink | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this
05/16/2006
Patricia Polacco and McGraw Hill
This is copied from Patricia Polacco's website. McGraw Hill/SRA has acted very much like a guilty child who protests too much. And their guilt is in their pushing of NCLB, not because it is good for schools and children, but because it is good for their profit margin. Publishers Weekly recently reported that McGraw Hill made 1.5 BILLION dollars from its standardized tests.
--------------------------------
A RESPONSE TO SRA/McGRAW HILL REMARKS IN REGARD TO THEIR CANCELLATION OF MY PROGRAM AT THE I.R.A. CONFERENCE MAY 2 AND 3, 2006.
I am deeply troubled by the response and position that SRA/McGraw Hill has made public through their two spokespersons, Tom Stanton and John McHale.
Their official position is: “Patricia Polacco did not fulfill her contract to us, therefore her programs were cancelled”…”the company cancelled Polacco’s speaking engagements only after officials learned that she wasn’t willing to keep her remarks limited to the subjects covered in her contract”…”Patricia Polacco CHOSE not to honor her contract”…
I CHOSE??? HOW COULD I CHOOSE NOT TO APPEAR WHEN MY CHOICE WAS TAKEN FROM ME BY SRA/McGRAW HILL’S CANCELATION? I WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULFILL THE CONTRACT. IT WAS CANCELLED OUT FROM UNDER ME!!!! SRA/McGRAW HILL MADE ALL OF THE CHOICES HERE! THEY EFFECTIVELY REMOVED ANY OF MY CHOICES WHEN THEY ACTED AND CANCELLED THE APPEARANCE.
I had agreed to do two of my well-known speeches. “The Heroes in My Life” and “Tales and Talk”. My corporation produces videos of both of these speeches. Within the content of both of these programs I make reference to the NCLB and it’s destructive and counterproductive force in American education today.
On April 11, 2006, after my staff was hounded for four months to furnish a complete written manuscript of my program, I finally contacted Buchannan and Associates by phone. It was only then that I was informed that it was “unacceptable” to include any and all references to the NCLB. I was told I could conduct my presentation as usual, but I had to exclude any and all remarks regarding the NCLB! When I registered disbelief at this even being suggested, the reply was…”our client is very sensitive to this material and does not want you to include this in your remarks”…Buchannan and Associates actually put this in WRITING and sent it to my office in an email! There is no way SRA/McGraw Hill can distance themselves from any of this and their blatant attempt to censor and alter specific references within the context of the two presentations that I contracted to perform.
As far as the SRA/McGraw Hill contract is concerned, obviously I signed it January of 2006. I have never disputed this. I am, however, ashamed to admit that I did not read this contract, nor do I have any memory of ever signing it. Especially in view of the fact that Buchannan and Associates was the ONLY entity that my staff was dealing with concerning the IRA appearance. They assumed, as did I, that Buchannan and Associates represented the IRA.
If this makes me a complete idiot…then I will take the heat on this. I sign a stack of documents every single day. In the interest of saving time, my assistant simply puts the stack of documents, letters, and missives in front of me, leafs through, exposing only the signature pages, points at the signature line, and I simply sign them period. I never see any of these contracts with the exception of only the signature page. I do them so quickly that I pay no attention…I just sign my name. Appearance contracts are usually so straight -forward and uncomplicated that they don’t warrant severe scrutiny…again, if this makes me a blithering, drooling idiot, I take the hit again.
From January 2006 on, the only communications that my staff received concerning the IRA was from Buchannan and Associates who represented “a client” that was never named, thus the confusion. Our conclusion was that Buchannan and Associates represented the IRA.
Speaking of the contract that SRA/McGraw Hill was good enough to furnish on the web, please review it carefully. It clearly shows that I agreed to do my two presentations – “Heroes in My Life” and “Tales and Talk”. It was never my intent to deviate from this in any way. Please examine the contract further and see if at any point within this contract it says that SRA/McGraw Hill reserves the right to approve of, alter, change or order exclusions of certain portions of the programs that I was to provide. YOU WILL NOTE THAT NO SUCH PROVISION OCCURS!! So, within the constraints of their own contract, SRA/McGraw Hill had no legal right, basis or authority to demand exclusions within my presentations.
Also , please note a paragraph that I completely overlooked and have SRA/McGraw Hill to thank for drawing my attention to it. The third paragraph down from the top of page two of the contract clearly stated “If SRA/MCGRAW Hill cancels the engagement sixty (60) days or less prior to the scheduled dates of the engagement, then the entire appearance fee will be due and payable”. I was cancelled on April 26th, 2006 at 3:18 PM.
McGRAW HILL, YOU OWE ME $5000.00!
SRA/McGraw Hill has also implied in various articles and responses that I had no intention of presenting the two programs agreed upon, but had, rather, taken it upon myself to present a completely different program that was to be exclusively my objections to the NCLB. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a total fabrication. Their remarks only serve as a rather transparent attempt on the part of SRA/McGraw Hill to justify their outrageous position in taking action to force me to exclude any and all references to the NCLB within the two speeches that I had every intention of presenting at the I.R.A.
Another ridiculous assertion by SRA/McGraw Hill is: “Patricia Polacco was to be paid for her appearances, therefore making her an employee of SRA/McGraw Hill, which means that she is obliged to represent the views of our company”…
I am paid an appearance fee (look at the contract)…NOT A SALARY. SRA/McGraw Hill would have sent me a 1099 form in January for tax purposes. A 1099 form is available only to INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. The optimum word here is…INDEPENDENT!! A VERY CLEAR DEFINITON RELIEVING ME OF ANY OBLIGATION TO EXPRESS SRA/McGRAW HILL’S VIEWS.
Oh, and here is the best of all…SRA/McGRAW HILL ACCUSES ME OF “HAVING A POLITICAL AGENDA”…
WHAT AGENDA??
It was not my agenda…BUT SRA/McGRAW HILL’S POLITICAL AGENDA THAT HAS CREATED THIS ENTIRE MESS!
SRA/McGraw Hill publishes and sells the NCLB tests to our public schools. It is estimated that this is $1.4 billion dollar industry annually (as reported in the recent article in Publishers Weekly).
WHO DO YOU THINK HAS THE AGENDA HERE?
SRA/McGraw Hill is completely responsible for politicizing this entire situation by having the arrogance and audacity of taking issue and attempting to sensor portions of my two presentations, which, apparently flies in the face of their connection to the NCLB and their profit margin.
If I had not been approached by SRA/McGraw Hill and ORDERED to remove portions of my two presentations, I would have simply come to Chicago and given my presentations without incident. Teachers, Librarians, and Educators would have left the room with full hearts and gladdened spirits…thankful that they had chosen to become the heroes that they are. They would have left the event inspired, validated, and renewed. I believe with all of my heart that our Librarians, Teachers, and Educators are among the last heroes standing in our nation. It is their integrity, their fortitude and their generous and caring spirits that makes our children’s dreams soar. It is their fervent hope that all children succeed. Not one of them wants any child left behind!
The error of SRA/McGraw Hill’s position is this:
IT IS UNTENABLE.
WHERE IS THEIR HONOR?
WHERE IS THEIR HONESTY?
WHERE ARE THEIR ETHICS?
WHERE IS THEIR SENSE OF DECENCY?
It seems clear that their vested interest will not tolerate any discussion or disagreement with the NCLB. Could it be that if the NCLB Mandate is repealed and defeated, that it will have a profound and direct effect on their bottom line?
It matters not, how diligently SRA/McGraw Hill’s spin doctors, damage control wizards, computer trolling experts, and public relations gurus try to twist and rewrite the facts…
THE FACTS ARE INDISPUTABLE! THE FACTS REMAIN UNCHANGED!
SRA/McGraw Hill cancelled my presentations at the Chicago I.R.A. on May 2nd and 3rd, 2006 for one reason and one reason only…to insure that no reference would be made, by me, concerning my opposition to the NCLB!
SRA/McGRAW HILL CHOSE TO OVER STEP BOUNDARIES AND DISPLAY THE MOST UNACCEPTABLE AND OUTRAGEOUS ARROGANCE! NOW IT APPEARS THAY HAVE GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATED THE POWER OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB AND ITS DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION…BUT MOST OF ALL, THAY HAVE MADE THE TRAGIC ERROR OF UNDERESTIMATING THE POWER AND INTELLIGENCE OF THE AMERICAN EDUCATOR!!
The irony here is, that McGraw/Hill could have avoided all of the ramifications of THEIR actions by simply offering an apology and allowing me to perform as scheduled in Chicago. If they had, everyone would have walked away from this a winner. Shame on you McGraw Hill. Shame.
Patricia Polacco
10:55 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
05/15/2006
bitterness
Bitterness is a cup of curdled milk left too long in the hot sun
Bitterness is a raw wound that seeps and weeps and never heals over
Bitterness is a sharp pebble in a too tight shoe
Bitterness is a shard of broken glass that festers under the skin
Bitternessi s any angry word that echoes over and over
20:46 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this