All Calories are Not Created Equal September 21, 2012

It may interest you to know that the calorie number you read on your box of pasta is an estimate.  Those numbers are based on the proportions of fat, carbohydrates, protein and sometimes fiber (it may be listed separately) a food contains.  The same methods are used for estimating calories on nuts, vegetables, meat and the like. 

 

However, these numbers don’t reflect our ‘net calorie’.  When you eat something your body has to expend energy (calories) to digest that food.  These calories are spent on enzymes, microbes and the like which aid in breaking down the food and passing it through the digestive system.  So the equation for net calorie would look like this:

 

calories consumed – calories required to digest food = net calorie intake

 

When you eat foods that are harder to digest, your net calorie intake is reduced.

 

A new study by Rachel Carmody and collaborators at Harvard University delves into the question of food processing with some interesting results. The team developed a clinical study involving mice and food that was raw, cooked, whole or pounded.   If you are super interested in mouse studies you can read the whole article published in Scientific American (link below).  For those of us that are mouse study adverse, I’ll summarize the results.

 

Mice were fed sweet potatoes that were either raw, or cooked and pounded or not pounded.  The amount of food they ate and the weight they gained was measured.  Interesting to note the mice were allowed to eat as much as they wanted.  All other factors (exercise) were the same.  Mice who ate cooked sweet potatoes gained more weight than those that ate raw sweet potatoes.

 

Some of my raw food friends are very happy right now.  And yes, the study suggests that raw food has less net calories than cooked food.  This because heat breaks down cell walls and makes them easier to digest.

 

Further, the article says, “In general, it seems that the more processed foods are the more they actually give us the number of calories we see on the box, bag or other sort of label. This applies not just to cooking and pounding but also to industrial processing.”

 

Another recent study compared humans who eat whole wheat bread with nuts and seeds combined with real cheese and those who ate white bread and processed cheese food.  Participants who ate the whole foods expended twice the energy digesting the whole wheat/real cheese combo as the other group.

 

So eat as many raw, whole foods as you can and as you meander through the grocery store be thinking about what foods will be the most difficult to digest.  As a side benefit, those foods are quite nutritious too.

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/

The Romney Video September 20, 2012

Generally when I see something in the news that seems extreme one way or another to the point where I shake my head, I try to investigate further.  I read several news outlets and if possible I refer to the source directly and make up my mind.

 

So this Romney thing came out and I thought, ‘this is crazy!’  I mean who would knowingly ostracize 47% of voters by calling them ‘victims’ who basically sponge off the government.  Right?  It is nuts!

 

So, I went to the source, Mother Jones, who has the transcript on their website.  I noticed some things about Mother Jones when I arrived at the site but I’ll get to that in a minute.  What I found was the statements didn’t seem nearly as controversial to me as what I originally thought after listening to the media.

 

I strongly encourage readers to go to Mother Jones and read the full transcript.  That way you can judge for yourself what Romney meant or didn’t mean.  I won’t copy excerpts here, but I’ll include a link to the full transcript.  I’m also going to cite some facts and I’ll provide those links too.

 

My understanding of what Romney said is that voters who currently are not paying taxes will not respond to a platform of lowering taxes because, wait for it, they don’t pay any.  Now he did say some possibly offensive things about people believing they are victims etc, but I guarantee, he doesn’t think that about the entire portion of those people not paying taxes.   In fact, he later said, “I’m sure I could state it more clearly and in a more effective way than I did in a setting like that.”  And it is important to understand the setting that was basically a question and answer/campaign input/strategy session.  Romney was really soliciting feedback from the room and having a discussion.

 

Regardless, I was curious about that, ’47 percent’ so I checked out some numbers.  Here are some things I found (kudos to CBS and WSJ for printing some actual data):

 

–       49% of Americans in the second quarter of 2011 lived in a household where at least one member received a government benefit (think children living with parents or spouses).  This number is up from 30% in the 1980’s and 44.4% in third quarter 2008.   – US Census Bureau

 

–       47% of US households pay no federal income tax, of that 38 million households paying no tax, 44% are receiving elderly tax benefits, 30% have credits for children and working poor– 2011 study by the Tax Policy Center

–       That 47% is up from 30% in the 1980’s

 

Some of you might be shocked to find so many people don’t pay Federal Income Tax.  I wasn’t so surprised at the overall number, but by the fact that both numbers have increased so dramatically.  This increase is simply unsustainable.  Our Nation will be bankrupt if it continues.  The National debt plus unfunded liabilities adds up to a whopping $520,000 per American household.  I don’t know about you but I won’t be paying back my share anytime soon.

 

I mentioned some observations I made at the Jones site.  When I visited the Mother Jones site the first thing I noticed was one of those thermometer fundraising things where the goal was to raise $80K.  I also saw the site was really highlighting the video controversy.  It showed some excerpts from the transcripts and was commenting in tabloid fashion.  I wondered why would it be in Jones’ interest to do this when I thought the transcript was mostly innocuous?  Well, money.  It couldn’t be more obvious with the giant thermometer asking for donations.   I’ve read several articles about how Jones is ‘enjoying the spotlight’ news and that one “enthusiastic reader sought out the magazine’s hard-to-find Washington bureau and dropped off a check.”  So money.  It is in Jones’ best interest to keep this controversy going because it is earning money.  Of course, it is a business and must earn money.  I don’t fault that.  But this is just another reason to question what you read.

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443816804578003970232983216.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/the-data-behind-romneys-47-comments/

http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20120920/NEWS0107/209200393/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/business/media/mother-jones-grabs-attention-with-romney-report.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/us-usa-campaign-romney-response-idUSBRE88H05620120918

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-06-us-owes-62-trillion-in-debt_n.htm

 

Upcoming Organic Exclusive September 18, 2012

I’m getting ready to do a possibly (if I get my game on) several part series on organic food.  I plan to cover general definitions (USDA Organic, Organic, etc.).  But I’m also interested about the things that are allowed under the USDA Organic Seal.  I’m curious to know how rigorous the certification is and plan to talk to some local farmers.  I also want to investigate the good/bad/indifferent effects choosing organic has on the environment.  I’d love your comments.  If there is anything that makes you wonder or troubles you about the whole organic movement, please let me know.  Thanks in advance!

Start Young

I’m pretty sure my kids are smarter than me.  Certainly their memory is better than mine.  They just aren’t as well educated yet.   So I generally don’t hold back sharing information with them even if I think they might not digest it all.

We talk about good nutrition, a lot.  It is never too early to start teaching them why it is important to eat well.  I tell them they must eat good food so they have plenty of energy to play, so their brain works well and so they can grow.

I taught my kids early on to recognize junk food.  When we would pass a vending machine, inevitably one of the kids would ask, “What’s that?”  I’d say, “That is junk food.  It is yucky.  We don’t want to eat that.”  My husband was embarrassed when while they were shopping at Target my then 1.5 year-old shouted, “That lady is eating junk food!”   She was good-natured about being caught, smiled sheepishly and put her chips away.

Of course, this has to be balanced with respect for other people’s food especially when the kids are little.  It is not okay to comment on what your friends at preschool are eating for lunch.  Just worry about your own food and not what others are eating.

Now that the boys are older, they are asking more detailed questions about junk food.  What foods are junk foods?  How do they make junk food?  Why do people eat junk food?

And I explain it as well as I can.  I tell my kids that junk food is made from food that tastes and looks so bad that they have to put sugar or salt in it and fake colors just to get people to eat it.  And that if they saw junk food before all the fake stuff was added it would look and taste so yucky they would never, never want to eat it.  My 5 year-old knows what high fructose corn syrup is and how it is made (basically).

Mind you, I explain that it is okay to have a little junk food sometimes.  I don’t want my kids to be so deprived of food their peers are eating that they are isolated.   Ultimately, they will have to live in a world where, sadly, junk food plays a big cultural role and I want them to be well prepared to negotiate those waters.

I know that someday my kids will fall off the wagon and not eat well.  That is all p art of learning and growing up.  I hope that by building a solid foundation of good habits (i.e. caring about what we eat, trying to make the best healthy choices we can and continually learning about the food we consume) eventually the boys will come back to the habits they grew up with.

Regardless of your take on nutrition, start talking with your kids early.  You’ll be surprised at how responsibly they will eat with a little education.

Eating habits are learned. There I wrote it. September 17, 2012

Great eating habits are made, not born.  Eating a healthy diet consisting of a lot of vegetables doesn’t come naturally to our species.  Humans crave sugar, salt and fat because foods these flavors are essential to human survival.  Humans crave salt as an essential compound with key minerals and sugar and fat because they are calorie dense.  So basically, left to their own devices, humans would probably eat fruit, meat and not so many vegetables.  Which was fine in a time where food and food choices were limited, but we live in a very different world now.

We could argue for years, as society is, about what constitutes a healthy diet.  My definition of a healthy diet is vegetables, meat, dairy and fruit.  I’ve listed those items in order of importance and relative portion size.   So, I’d say eat mostly vegetables, have some meat and dairy and a little fruit.

I had a friend ask me once to help her write a book on nutrition for children.  She wanted me to give some tips about how to deal with picky eaters.  I didn’t do it because she would not have liked what I recommend and it is this:  If your three year old is a super picky eater, you have already screwed up and things are going to be much harder for you than they were for me.  Yea, not something parents want to hear is it.  But, please, don’t stop reading because not all is lost.

My kids (ages 3 and 5) have great eating habits.  They will eat pretty much anything. My husband was skeptical with my methods to begin, but he has seen first hand the result and totally buys into the program now.  He has also seen the level of commitment it takes to get your kids to eat well and how hard that is to maintain once they are in the ‘real’ world outside of our house.

So, for what it is worth, here is what I did:

1.  Avoid processed foods.  Lots of arguing going on about food safety and I avoid a lot of those questionable additives by making food from scratch at home.  That way I know what is in it.  The old, ‘shop the perimeter of the grocery store,’ suggestion applies here.  It will be an adjustment for some of you, but so worth it in the end.  You and your family deserve good quality food and you can make that happen.

2.  Start with the womb.  It is important to eat a healthy diet when you are pregnant for a lot of reasons, keeping the fetus and mom healthy etc.  But there is another theory and that is eating a diverse array of food exposes the baby to different compounds and ‘flavors’.  I have no way of knowing if this is true, but regardless it doesn’t hurt to eat many types of food.  This also sets you and the family up for healthy eating when the baby is born.

3.  Continue with your diverse eating program while nursing.  Again the theory is the taste of your milk changes based on what you eat.  So your baby, even before he/she eats solid food will be broadening his pallet.  And if this isn’t true, the diversity of food will only provide you and the baby with better nutrition.  No downside.

4.  When you begin feeding your child solid food, don’t start with baby cereal.  Rice baby cereal is a simple carbohydrate.  It will break down into sugar in your baby’s mouth and begin your child’s addiction to sugar.  Start with avocado.  It helps if you ate avocado when you nursed so be sure to do that.  Avocado is great because it is soft, high fat and low sugar.  It is easy too, simply mash a ripe avocado and mix it with a little breast milk (or formula) until it is thin enough for your baby to manage.  Never add salt or sugar to your infant’s food.

5.  Once your baby has mastered the avocado, move on to other vegetables, then meat (fish is great) and LASTLY fruit.  Think of it this way, babies don’t have the ability to understand the consequences of food choices like (some) adults do.  Imagine that your favorite sweet, say ice cream, was great for you.  Imagine it is high-fiber, low-calorie and still tastes just the same.  Wouldn’t you just eat ice cream all day?  I would.  This is what it is like for babies and toddlers.  And even if they could understand the consequences, their self-control isn’t developed enough to say no to sweet food.  So, if you start off by offering them a super sweet banana, they are always going to want that banana and really resist when you offer them peas.  It will make your life a lot easier if you just hold off on the banana and start with the peas.  The baby won’t know anything else and be perfectly happy with peas, spinach or whatever.

Now, it may surprise you that I’m suggesting meat as one of the first foods.  I originally got the idea from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).  The AAP recommends meat as a first food because of its high iron levels.  Iron levels in breast milk are low and iron deficiency is common throughout the word.  The AAP recommends red meat as early as 6 months.   And another great bonus, meat is calorie dense.  So if you are struggling with a child who wakes up at night hungry, don’t reach for cereal, break out the beef!

If you are using jarred baby food, you will not be able to find one that is just beef or just fish.  You will have to make this yourself.  But, I promise, it is very easy and so worth the effort.

6. Your kids must eat what you eat and you must eat healthy well-balanced meals. I first became committed to this rule for self-preservation reasons.  I was exhausted and not willing to go to the effort to make a home cooked meal for my husband and me and a different one for my child.  So, my kids ate what was served.  Trust me, your child will not starve.  That is not to say it will be easy.  There will be challenges and battles of will.  But there is one thing you can do to make it a bit easier.  At the beginning of the meal, offer only what your child likes the LEAST.   Let’s say you are having meatloaf, spinach and potatoes.  If spinach is your child’s least favorite food, put it and only it on a plate and offer it to him/her first.  If they balk, say, “You can have your meatloaf when you finish your spinach.”  Offering the only ‘tougher’ foods when the toddler is most hungry and ‘bribing’ them with the easier foods will make your job easier.  So I’d offer the spinach, then the meatloaf and last the potatoes.  Eventually, you will get to the point where you can put everything on the plate at once, but probably not for several years.

Every child is different.  My first son was a great eater from day one.  We had some challenges, but he was fairly easy.  My second son was much more picky than the first.  We had a struggle with some things, but stayed committed and today he is a great eater.

Eating habits are learned and as a parent you have a wonderful and important opportunity to affect the long-term health of your child.  But, you must be committed.  You must make the tough choices and you must set an example for your children.  I did it and I know you can do it too.

So, there it is in a nutshell.  There are lots of details to figure out, but also tons of resources out there.  I’m happy to answer any questions if I can.  I’ve listed some resources below that I used to write this post as well as a few of the books I used when the boys were small.  I hope it helps!

http://aapnews.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/10/05/aapnews.20101005-1.full

http://sciencemags.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-do-you-crave-sugar-salt-and-fat.html

http://www.organicauthority.com/kids/babys-first-food-shouldnt-be-white-rice-ceral.html#s.abwo7cauabaaa

Books:

Super Baby Food by Ruth Yaron – Be careful of this one because it is very, very detailed.  Don’t let that freak you out.  You don’t have to go to the extreme Ruth does and she does have some helpful advice and lots of information.

Caring for Your Baby and Young Child by The American Academy of Pediatrics – My doctor gave me a copy of this book when our child was born.  It covers lots of development, health and nutrition subjects and was really my go to book when the kids were babies.

First Meals by Annabel Karmel – This is a beautiful book that will inspire you to cook.  It takes you from baby food to 7 years.

100daysofrealfood.com – A fantastic website outlining one family’s journey from processed to whole food.  It is great for someone making the transition to healthy eating.  It has lots of recipes and resources.

Too rich for Presidency? September 15, 2012

I was listening to a local am radio show this morning. The question they were debating was, “Does Mitt Romney’s wealth preclude him from relating to the middle class.” While I appreciate that question, I wondered, is Romney so much richer than other Presidents? I thought of Jack Kennedy immediately. So, my task today is to figure out the relative wealth of some of our past presidents at the time of their presidency.

A quick google search offered me from the Christian Science Monitor, a list of the 10 richest presidents. Important to note these figures are wealth during presidency as opposed to after. I’m assuming these figures are the net present value of the past President’s worth although I did not actually see that calculation.

1. George Washington, $525 million
2. Thomas Jefferson, $212 million
3. John F. Kennedy, approximately $125 million (his worth was difficult to determine and various reports have shown the Kennedy family fortune at close to $1 billion).
4. Theodore Roosevelt $125 million
5. Andrew Jackson $119 million
6. James Madison $101 million
7. Lyndon B. Johnson $98 million
8. Herbert Hoover $75 million
9. Franklin D. Roosevelt $60 million
10. John Tyler, $51 million

I’ve looked at several different lists and there is some shuffling between Jefferson and Kennedy, but each reports basically the same list. I’ve seen some lists reference Clinton, but the Clintons amassed most of their wealth after Bill left office. In fact, Clinton left office owing a lot of legal fees. He and Hillary earned millions as authors and speakers.

In America, you are rewarded in dollars for your perceived worth. Most working Americans have a review each year and based on their performance may get a raise. Athletes are a clear example; the guys who get paid most are the ones the coaches think are the best players. So rather than shun candidates for being rich, why aren’t we viewing this wealth as an indication of their success? Being wealthy doesn’t preclude you from doing the right thing for your country. Gosh, look at all the wonderful things the Gates Foundation is doing. Americans should be grateful and proud of the fact that may of the people who were so successful in other aspects of their life were/are willing to serve our country (a lot of them our Founding Fathers). When you see wealth, look for the success that supports it.

References
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0220/Presidents-Day-trivia-Who-were-the-10-richest-US-presidents/John-Tyler-51-million
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/the-net-worth-of-the-us-presidents-from-washington-to-obama/57020/#slide43

Meta-whaaa?

I heard NPR’s report on the new organic food study recently.  I was surprised by some of what they said so I did a little further investigation.

First of all it is important to understand that this is a meta-analysis.  A meta-analysis is a review of all existing research.  There is no new clinical research conducted in a meta-analysis.

The study was conducted by Stanford University so I began searching there.  I found an article there with quotes from Dena Bravata, the senior author of the study.  In this case the research team, “sifted through thousands of papers and identified 237 of the most relevant to analyze.”  The team evaluated 17 studies of populations (people) consuming organic and conventional diets and 223 studies that compared the food.  I read through the findings of the study and have decided the best way to make sense of it is to categorize the findings as either Pro Conventional or Pro Organic.

Pro Conventional	Pro Organic
No consistent differences in the vitamin content	Evidence suggests higher levels of omega-3 in milk
No difference in protein or fat content	Organic produce had 30% lower risk of pesticide contamination
Organic produce was not pesticide free and all food generally fell within allowable safety limits	Lower pesticide levels in children eating organic food
	Organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic resistant bacteria

Regarding the research, the Stanford article said, “There were no long-term studies of health outcomes in people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from tow days to two years.”

So, now that the waters are so muddy, where does that leave you?  To answer that question you should first ask yourself why am I buying organic food.  If you are buying it because you want more nutrition in your produce, the studies reviewed suggest it doesn’t make a difference.  If you are buying organic to reduce pesticide exposure, it does although organic is not 100% pesticide free.

There are lots of reasons to buy/not buy organic.  For me it comes down to a basic issue:  do you trust the use of chemical pesticides.  I really liked the quote by Crystal Smith-Spangler who is an instructor of medicine at the Stanford School of Medicine, “This is information people can use to make their own decisions based on their level of concern about pesticides.”

And for me one of the hardest things about making an educated decision about the dangers of pesticides to humans is the fact that there are no long-term clinical studies.  This meta-analysis acknowledges, “There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.”  So for now, it is basically a gamble based on your gut.

One could ask, why the FDA doesn’t require a long-term human study to prove safety, but that is a subject for another day.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organic-food-may-not-be-healthier-for-you

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html

You’re doing what?

I’m blogging and I blame it on my sister in-law. She suggested I start a blog about nutrition for children. Quite possibly this because she recognizes how anal retentive I am regarding research and is lazy. You know, why recreate the wheel, Leslie has probably already exhausted this one. More likely she just gets sick of calling me with questions and would prefer a less personal method of interaction because who knows what I’ll launch into. Regardless, I’m giving it a whirl.

When found I was pregnant, I immediately began researching: what to eat, how much to exercise, when to visit the doctor, what tests to do … you know all the regular stuff. I immediately felt overwhelmed by the enormity of and confused by the contradicting information out there. It was about as clear as mud.

We live in strange times, overloaded with information. It really amazes me that you can search for anything on the Internet, ANYTHING, and you will get results. And I feel almost handcuffed by the responsibility to research everything because I can.

When we were going through prenatal testing with our first child I remember my Mom said, “Gosh I would have loved the ability to have tests done when I was pregnant. You know so much more than we did.” Yes, she was absolutely right, but what she didn’t recognize is what a burden all that knowledge is. My parents never had a conversation about aborting a fetus based on such a test because the test didn’t exist and boy is that a rough conversation to have. That was something my Mom could simply not appreciate.

My point is not to get into a conversation about birth defects and abortion, but rather to emphasize that fact that all this information is kind of a pain in the hootzba because someone has to wade through it all, form an opinion and then communicate that opinion. And current dissatisfaction with all, ‘news’ organizations leaves me to do much of this on my own. Maybe I have trust issues.

When I get wound up, I’ll post. Most of the time I get wound up about health and nutrition topics, but I can’t promise politics won’t rear its ugly head.

I’ll consider this blog successful if I enjoy it and we learn something from each other. Bonus if you enjoy it too.

It’s for the kids – Chicago Teachers Strike

Full disclosure, my kids go to a fabulous private school that I love. I’d prefer to send my children to public school, but where I live there are few public schools that are acceptable and it is tough to get into those schools.  I continue to watch the school situation here and I hope to be able to change my decision soon.

I’d like to begin with facts and these were surprisingly hard to find.  I even looked at the 45-page document outlining the Chicago Union’s demands only that it was filled with generalities, no specifics.

–       Chicago is the third largest school district in the country

–       The city of Chicago currently has a deficit of $520,000,000 through fiscal year 2011

–       Teachers in Chicago have the third highest salary in the country and also the shortest work day and academic year in the country

–       The average pension for a teacher retiring after 30 years is $77,496 a year or cash value of $1.6 million

–       In Chicago schools where the graduation rate was 60%, 99.7% of the teachers received satisfactory evaluations

–       In those schools 20% of students read at an 8^th grade level

–       In those schools 8% were deemed college ready based on state tests

–       Chicago teachers received pay raises between 19% and 46% over the last five years

–       The Union asked initially for a pay increase of 30%

–       The Union then reduced its demand to 16% over four years

–       Current inflation rate is 1.7%

–       Projected National average salary increase 2012, 2.9%

–       The teacher evaluation metrics written 40 years ago include things like dress and bulletin board presentation

–       In Chicago, 71 cents of every new education dollar goes to teacher retirement benefits

Those are some of the facts.  Please don’t shoot the messenger.  I’ll copy a lot of my sources so you can check them out.

I’m not against teachers.  I respect good teachers just as I do people in other professions who excel at their jobs.  I take issue with a broken system and the core of the problem is a combination of a broken evaluation system and pension system.

The really shameful part of an evaluation system that doesn’t work is that there is no way to reward excellence.  What about those teachers who really are going the extra mile and making big changes in the classroom?  Based on the fact that 99.7% of teachers in Chicago receive satisfactory evaluations, a great teacher gets no more reward than an average or even below average teacher.

I had an interesting conversation with a teacher the other day.  She was lambasting that ‘business people, people who make widgets’ had the audacity to help develop a teacher evaluation system.  “They are totally different,” she said.  This is an argument I hear a lot from teachers, but is it really true?

There is nothing inherently different about teaching that somehow places it outside the rigors of other working professional and precludes its performance from being measured.  I’m often dismayed because I hear teachers complain about being measured on student test scores and yet I don’t hear suggestions of an alternative metric.  Yes, there needs to be some sort of metric.  And, before we demonize the businessman, business has addressed this issue for years.  Maybe there is something the teaching profession could learn from looking at the way businesses evaluate their employees.  It never hurts to look, does it?

The private sector has working people doing all sorts of things.  Think about all the people you interact with in daily life.  Lots of those employees provide services that are hard to measure.  Marketing is one that comes to mind.  It is widely known in the business world that it is very tough to measure the effectiveness of marketing campaigns.  However, marketing professionals are evaluated.  How do you measure the effectiveness of a Human Resources employee?  I have no idea, but they are measured.  And, although I’ve heard teachers say they aren’t, doctors and nurses are most certainly evaluated.

I worked in the private sector.  While I did get fairly large pay raises when I took a new job/started working at a new company, I never got the sort of pay raises the Chicago teachers are vying for.  Typically my raise was 3% a year, but sometimes less.  I never had tenure.  I had health insurance benefits that I contributed to.  I did not have any sort of pension.  In my most recent job I not only worked long days, but also worked two or three weekends a month.  I worked 12 months of the year.  I NEVER got a pay raise or bonus when the company I worked for was not profitable.  I’m not complaining.  I loved my job.

I think my experience is that of the mainstream work force.  Teachers have been insulated from the economic realities that govern the rest of the working population and it has set them up for disappointment. It isn’t the fault of the teachers, but unfortunately it will be a bitter pill for them to swallow when a correction to the system is made and it must be made.  Chicago simply can’t support the system the way it is now.  It is unsustainable.

The Chicago Public Schools have the same problem GM did with autoworker pensions.  Something has to be done and the employees won’t like it.  The reality is society can’t afford to make retired teachers millionaires on the backs of the taxpayers.  I’m sorry and I hate that because it is what the profession expects.  It will be a painful adjustment just as it has been for American autoworkers, but it just can’t continue.

Chicago Public Schools needs to look at what GM did to restructure its pension system and save the business.  A telling quote from David Cole, with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor Michigan, “Those were the old days.  Everybody is trying to run leaner now and GM is not unique.”

The private sector is not the enemy of the teacher.  We all have kids in school.

References:

http://www.ctunet.com/quest-center/research/the-schools-chicagos-students-deserve

http://illinoispolicy.org/blog/blog.asp?ArticleSource=5041

http://illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=5055

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2012/0812/Back-to-school-How-to-measure-a-good-teacher

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/business/retirees-wrestle-with-pension-buyout-from-general-motors.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443524904577651533203955546.html?KEYWORDS=rambo+at+the+school+barricades

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8808452

http://www.aafp.org/fpm/1998/0500/p22.html