Naivety or Optimism?

I came here to talk politics but I got a little bit sidetracked.

Naivety- a noun coming from French etymology- the act of being naive

Naive- marked by unaffected simplicity (I like that one.)
- deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment (Ok that's me sometimes.)
- not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental
situation (That sounds about right.)

My point here is that naivety isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes I choose it because, like the first definition states, it's the simple route.

Anyway the intended purpose of this entry has to do, like I said, with politics. I want to talk about Meg Whitman for a moment. Usually I don't engage in political discussion. I choose naivety because I prefer to avoid arguments. Politics, my friends, seems to harbor arguments and negativity around every corner. However, as a functioning adult in our society I accept a certain responsibility of knowing what is going on and voicing my right to my opinion (ahem...voting). So for this entry, I am setting aside naivety and focusing on optimism. Not that they can't coexist, but in politics? Optimism isn't usually a term paralleled with the government.

Back to point. In my two days of health arrest, with my local-channels-only tv (I broke on the first day and ordered cable but it isn't coming until next weekend.)I have seen quite a few commercials on Meg Whitman. Might I say first of all, it is no secret that our state is in dire straights. We need a change, and although it's been said before, we need one fast. We cannot continue to live at the pace we are, in the direction we're going, and hope to continue on as the Golden State. We're far from it. So where does optimism fit into this dark picture? While I'll admit I'm not finished researching, so far I am impressed with the points that Meg makes. Her three areas of focus: create more jobs, decrease government spending, fix the educational system. Her focus has piqued my interest.

Create more jobs. Can you believe that we have the highest number of people living off welfare? Okay, so we have a higher population, but even when you compare by percentage we're still considerably higher than the rest. What happened to us that we moved from the Land of Opportunity, to the Land of Free Handouts? Nothing is free, it all comes at some cost. I know that I have a right to be upset about this as a working citizen who watches her pay check slip away each month. I know that a lot of you would probably agree with me on that. I wonder what people on welfare would have to say about this. What is their perspective? How many of them would prefer to be working, contributing members of society if they could? I would like to choose optimism here and assume that a lot of them would take a job if they had one. What is it then that is stopping them? Why do so many of them continue to live off welfare rather than take the steps to make a better life for themselves? I realize there is not one answer here and the solution is much much more difficult than my simple mind can understand, but something needs to be done. If Meg Whitman thinks she has the solution, then more power to her.

One of the things she mentions is to decrease the amount of time individuals are allowed to stay on welfare. Currently the system is set at five years but Meg admits, no one is enforcing that time limit. She not only wants to enforce it, but she wants to decrease it to two. Do you think two years of free help is long enough to get you back on your feet? I think it could be if we change the attitude. At the end of that time she wants to give individuals a choice between getting a job or getting their GED. Solution! So many people on the welfare system lack the proper education to qualify them for the work force. Let's help them get what they need to get on their feet. It sounds like a great idea to me. Someone who has seen this before, or who has more insight into government "ideas" please give some feedback on this approach. Educate us on the pros and cons.

Decrease government spending. I think that's a great idea but it seems to me that it's indirectly proportionate to the other two focus points. How can you create enough change, statewide, to get people off welfare without first investing a whole lot of money into changing the program? Perhaps the money necessary to educate people will be less than the money currently being spent on those extra three years they're allowed to live off the system? Does that mean college tuition might stop increasing then? Just throwing it out there, I'm really not sure. And how can you cut government jobs while improving the educational system? Public schools are government, teachers are government employees. Is she going to cut us? How is that going to improve education? More on that in a minute. One of her points in decreasing government spending is to take more of an interest in what is going on. She plans to veto more things and to personally oversee what is happening. She is a business woman and she plans to run our state like a business. There are a lot of booming businesses out there. I like the idea. Businesses don't run like charities. They work towards profit and cut the slackers. Maybe that's what we need.

Improve education. In my current place of employment I haven't seen the panic and despair that I know a lot of teachers are dealing with. I've been extremely fortunate to land a job in a district that has planned for bad times and to be in a branch of teaching that most people aren't interested in, thus keeping my job open. However, it brings great concern when I hear neighboring districts who plan to increase furlow days or release more than 100 employees next year. It makes sense when looking at the immediate budget that if the money isn't there, you have to decrease size. Standard business. But in the business world, if your company scales back due to budget, your output scales back too. How in the world does that make sense for public schools? I'm sorry ma'am, we cannot enroll your child in kindergarten this year because we had to cut back. Yes I know he's already 6 because he didn't get in last year either. Classes are already at maximum capacity, you should have applied sooner. Try back next year. Yeah right! And we circle right back to the welfare problem. So tell me, how are we going to cut back on teachers when we generally see an increase in number of students each year? I have 36 students in each period right now (down from 40-42 at the beginning of the year- students are allowed to move around from school to school at any time in my district). I have desks for 32 and even if there were more desks available I don't have any more floor space to put them. Please tell me what they would do with my 180 students if they decided to cut my position. I'm not complaining by any means. I love my students, I love my job, and we've figured out how to work out the details. I just don't understand the solution that people who aren't in the trenches of education come up with. Meg Whitman wants to address this. I'm happy to hear that someone is willing to face it directly rather than sweep it under the rug.

One of the suggestions she makes is to rate schools from A-F. We give our students letter grades every day. Why not give our schools a grade too? Schools that earn an "F" for three years in a row would automatically switch to being a charter school. Okay this one has caught my attention. My district superintendent in trying to open a charter school right now and there's been a lot of hype from the teacher's association about it. Is it coincidence that he launched his idea about one week before Meg Whitman's commercials went public on the idea? Seems kind of funny to me. Anyway, the major complaint I've heard about charter schools is that teachers can quit at any time, but they can be fired at any time too. That worries me for the sake of the student. A classroom with a revolving door of teachers all year long is not a classroom learning much. Surely there is more to this story than what I currently understand. Anyone else have an opinion on the matter? One benefit I can see with that detail is the ability to release dead beat teachers. I hate the tenure rule. I know it provides security and I know the union has gone to bat for teachers in the past in a positive way, but for the most part I see the union and tenure as a hindrance to our field. If I do my job correctly and I work for my students instead of for summer vacations, I shouldn't have to worry about being fired and I shouldn't need a union to support me. My work should speak for itself. How many of us have had horrible teachers who needed to retire or who just weren't qualified to teach, but the school was stuck with them because they were tenured? It's ridiculous. Charter schools, from what I understand, would have more flexibility to deal with that. I think that's a good thing.

I could probably go on talking but it's time to get ready for church. If you've read down to this point, my hope is that you now have a mouth full to say in response. Please post your opinions! I would love to discuss this matter further.

Have a great day!