I have decided that the problem with many current policies is that we are trying to save what some people call the lowest common deonominator. This is a phrase that I've heard a lot recently to explain those people that need the most help. It's kind of a degrading term, don't you think? Degrading or not, I think that this may be the problem with our current government.
I'll give you and example using a subject I know best, education. According to studies, if I group my students heterogenously then I will get the best results out of my lowest students. Grouping students heterogenously means that I pair up my lowest student with my highest student. My highest student will "teach" my lowest student, and my lowest student will want to be as "good" as my highest student. I don't know where they are getting these results, but it has NEVER happened this way in my 10 years of teaching. It may work if the gap between my lowest and my highest student is not that far apart, but when you teach in an urban district, there are huge gaps in the ability between the highest and the lowest. Let me give you an example of the gap.
I have students in my 7th grade class that are at first, second, and third grade levels in reading and writing. I have some that are at fourth, fifth, and sixth. I have some that are seventh, eighth and high school. Here's what happens when you put a kid at a second grade level with another student at an eight grade level. The second grade level kid distrupts the learning process so that the student in the eighth grade level never finds out how low the second grade level student is. Or, the eighth grade level student comes to me and says that the other student "can't do it and I'm tired' gives up and gives the lower performing student the answers, or the eighth grade student fools around with second grade level student. However it plays out, the higher level student NEVER learns as much as he/she could if you put him in a group with equally leveled students. This is why higher level students that have parents that can afford it, leave the urban district schools and head to private or charter schools.
Now our comparison to the government. President Obama has the best of intentions. He wants those that can't (some would say there are those that won't in that group, but let's call them the CAN'T group) to be able to live up with those that can. If you put those that can with those that can't together and make them share their resources, those that can't will be able to get more and live a little bit better. But what actually happens is the same thing as what happens in the classroom, those that can either are brought down lower because they are helping those that can't, getting tired and giving to those that can't, or giving up and moving to a 'community' with equally leveled people. Any way you move it around, everyone is suffering.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Where is the outrage?
I'm not talking about the stock market after Friday's job numbers. I'm talking about the amount of money it will take to be able to take care of our elderly population. I am talking about me...and a lot of people that are in the same boat. It's going to be worse than the Titanic. We as taxpayers bailed out companies so the economy wouldn't fail, and when we are old, taxpayers will be paying to take care of us because it is almost impossible to save for a decent retirement.
I just had a conversation with my parents about retirement. Here's what will be different for me...and scary. Both my parents worked for a company that offered them a pension that includes health insurance. They receive 80 percent of their averaged last three years salary. Both get social security and they both got involved in the 401k plan when it started in the late 80's with a 5 percent company match. I don't want to make you sick, but my parents together with their social security and their pension make almost 200k/year, before tapping into their 401k. My mom is a high school graduate and my dad is a high school graduate with 20 years in the military and another 20 at the same company as my mom. They never had college loans and are considered blue collar. They worked for a company that manufactured everthing from microwaves to GPS devices. My mother was in quality control and my dad a supervisor.
I, on the other hand, went to college and continue to go to college. I have two master's degrees and am heading for a third. I still owe thousands of dollars on my NYU education. I make a little over 62k a year with my second job. According to the rules, I will receive a pension from the Massachusetts teacher's retirement system to the tune of 26k/per year at the age of 60 after 20 years of service. I will not receive health benefits or social security. I currently save $60/a week in my 403b with no match.
In other words, I will not have the retirement that my parents have. And neither will most other people. My retirement situation, according to most people, is supposed to be great. "You're a teacher...your bennies must be great!" Nooooooo, they are not, just like everyone else's, they suck. Why is our generation not outraged that we will not have the pension, social security, health benefit, and status of living that our parents have? Most of us will be at the poverty level. I am 46 years old and I never have had the ability to pay into my 403b more than the $60 per week I am putting in now. The only reason I am beginning to put more than that in my retirement is because I got a second job.
Why is it we as a society are slamming the worker that is 'hurting' our economy because of their 'overpriced' benefits? Why are we not demanding pensions? Why are we not demanding a livable wage? Why are we not demanding reasonable health benefits? Why are we not demanding a match in our retirement fund? Why are those that currently receive these benefits considered a drain on the system? Why are companies that are making billions of dollars in profits not required to provide these benefits? In the end, when we are 70, all of us will be on every entitlement program that is offered...because most of us will not be ready for retirement, and the taxpayer will be again footing the bill. But the companies will continue to make billions. Where is the outrage?
I just had a conversation with my parents about retirement. Here's what will be different for me...and scary. Both my parents worked for a company that offered them a pension that includes health insurance. They receive 80 percent of their averaged last three years salary. Both get social security and they both got involved in the 401k plan when it started in the late 80's with a 5 percent company match. I don't want to make you sick, but my parents together with their social security and their pension make almost 200k/year, before tapping into their 401k. My mom is a high school graduate and my dad is a high school graduate with 20 years in the military and another 20 at the same company as my mom. They never had college loans and are considered blue collar. They worked for a company that manufactured everthing from microwaves to GPS devices. My mother was in quality control and my dad a supervisor.
I, on the other hand, went to college and continue to go to college. I have two master's degrees and am heading for a third. I still owe thousands of dollars on my NYU education. I make a little over 62k a year with my second job. According to the rules, I will receive a pension from the Massachusetts teacher's retirement system to the tune of 26k/per year at the age of 60 after 20 years of service. I will not receive health benefits or social security. I currently save $60/a week in my 403b with no match.
In other words, I will not have the retirement that my parents have. And neither will most other people. My retirement situation, according to most people, is supposed to be great. "You're a teacher...your bennies must be great!" Nooooooo, they are not, just like everyone else's, they suck. Why is our generation not outraged that we will not have the pension, social security, health benefit, and status of living that our parents have? Most of us will be at the poverty level. I am 46 years old and I never have had the ability to pay into my 403b more than the $60 per week I am putting in now. The only reason I am beginning to put more than that in my retirement is because I got a second job.
Why is it we as a society are slamming the worker that is 'hurting' our economy because of their 'overpriced' benefits? Why are we not demanding pensions? Why are we not demanding a livable wage? Why are we not demanding reasonable health benefits? Why are we not demanding a match in our retirement fund? Why are those that currently receive these benefits considered a drain on the system? Why are companies that are making billions of dollars in profits not required to provide these benefits? In the end, when we are 70, all of us will be on every entitlement program that is offered...because most of us will not be ready for retirement, and the taxpayer will be again footing the bill. But the companies will continue to make billions. Where is the outrage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)