An educated workforce is the only true economic stimulus. If people are uneducated they are unemployable.

 

The former secretary of the economic cabinet in Kentucky - certainly no liberal by anyone's standards - continually preached the fact that it was hard to attract high paying jobs to this area because of our state's overall poor education system.

 

workfoce development is education, education is workforce development

 

Ace is right.:thumb:

It's more important to reward core Democratic Party constituencies like teachers than it is to get the economy going.

 

Where are the teachers rewarded in this? Keeping programs that help students not reading to learn to read? Helping students who have serious conditions that prevent them from learning like a regular student? Building schools or repairing schools that are overcrowded or breaking down?

 

This is NOT for teacher salaries or benefits or anything like this.

 

Now if you want to argue that this is not about stimulating the economy and should be in a bill of itself, that argument has merit.

There is no better place to spend money in this country than improving education. We may not see the return for years but it is well worth the investment, IMO.

 

To no avail, we have literally dumped money in the lap of education for years. I don't see where more money will help when the federal government has something to do with it.

Where are the teachers rewarded in this? Keeping programs that help students not reading to learn to read? Helping students who have serious conditions that prevent them from learning like a regular student? Building schools or repairing schools that are overcrowded or breaking down?

 

This is NOT for teacher salaries or benefits or anything like this.

 

 

Is not working in a new or remolded building a benefit to teachers?

 

With the limited budget that a school district possesses, if the money that would have been required to be spent on facilities is provided by the federal goverment (taxpayers), does that not increase the probability that money will be available for teachers salaries?

 

Does not helping students with serious conditions translate into better teaching materials and more special education teachers? Is that not a benefit to teachers?

 

Now if you want to argue that this is not about stimulating the economy and should be in a bill of itself, that argument has merit.

 

That is exactly what I'm arguing. All these items should be put into an education bill and then we can debate the merits of the education bill as an education bill. But that's not what Congress (Nancy Pelosi) did. The stated rationale for spending 800 billion dollars is that it's necessary to jump start the economy in the short term (in the next 12-18 months). But, how they are spending the money will have little or no effect in that time frame. Pelosi isn't stupid; she knows exactly what she's doing. She wants to get as many items that she couldn't get through Congress previously (which begs the question why they hadn't passed) under the cover of a stimulus bill.

 

 

P.S. Dixie Heights, the school from which my kids graduated, was recently and completely remodelled. I absolutely believe that it was money well spent. It is now a much better environment to learn with much better facilities. I'm sure Kenton Co will reap the benefits for many years to come. However, it took several years of planning before they even started construction and it took several years before they completed construction. It was anything but a short term project.

Where are the teachers rewarded in this? Keeping programs that help students not reading to learn to read? Helping students who have serious conditions that prevent them from learning like a regular student? Building schools or repairing schools that are overcrowded or breaking down?

 

This is NOT for teacher salaries or benefits or anything like this.

 

Now if you want to argue that this is not about stimulating the economy and should be in a bill of itself, that argument has merit.

 

I am with LBBC on this one:ylsuper:

An educated workforce is the only true economic stimulus. If people are uneducated they are unemployable.

 

The former secretary of the economic cabinet in Kentucky - certainly no liberal by anyone's standards - continually preached the fact that it was hard to attract high paying jobs to this area because of our state's overall poor education system.

 

workfoce development is education, education is workforce development

 

I am a firm believer in the value of education and just as firm a believer that the long term benefits of an educated workforce will do next to nothing to stimulate the economy in the short term.

Edited January 31, 200917 yr by shooter

Is not working in a new or remolded building a benefit to teachers?

 

With the limited budget that a school district possesses, if the money that would have been required to be spent on facilities is provided by the federal goverment (taxpayers), does that not increase the probability that money will be available for teachers salaries?

 

Does not helping students with serious conditions translate into better teaching materials and more special education teachers? Is that not a benefit to teachers?

 

 

 

That is exactly what I'm arguing. All these items should be put into an education bill and then we can debate the merits of the education bill as an education bill. But that's not what Congress (Nancy Pelosi) did. The stated rationale for spending 800 billion dollars is that it's necessary to jump start the economy in the short term (in the next 12-18 months). But, how they are spending the money will have little or no effect in that time frame. Pelosi isn't stupid; she knows exactly what she's doing. She wants to get as many items that she couldn't get through Congress previously (which begs the question why they hadn't passed) under the cover of a stimulus bill.

 

 

P.S. Dixie Heights, the school from which my kids graduated, was recently and completely remodelled. I absolutely believe that it was money well spent. It is now a much better environment to learn with much better facilities. I'm sure Kenton Co will reap the benefits for many years to come. However, it took several years of planning before they even started construction and it took several years before they completed construction. It was anything but a short term project.

 

First bolded, big whopping no. Two different pots of money. School systems have several different pots of money and most cannot be moved from one pot to another. Construction money CANNOT be used for salaries.

 

So, when the kids get better things to learn you are counting that as a big benefit to the teachers.:thumb: stretching there but okay.

 

On your last two paragraphs, my understanding is that most of the construction money wouldn't be spent till 2010. Heard that somewhere. So, yes, no short term benefit here.

 

On the Dems argument, I agree. And one of the reasons I liked McCain who pledged he would send such bills with added on spending to get it through back vetoed. THis is the game of politics that goes on in DC that is ruining this country. It was the BIGGEST SOURCE OF DISAPPOINTMENT I had when the Reps had both WHite House and Congress in their control.

Ace is right.:thumb:

 

I am with LBBC on this one:ylsuper:

 

Just a warning, make your trip to the grocery store tonight.

Ace and I agreeing means old Satan must be wearing ice skates and long johns because Hades has frozen and we are going to get a major snowstorm. over.:jump::lol::ylsuper::walk::thumb::thumb::clap::banana::sssh::bunny:

Just a warning, make your trip to the grocery store tonight.

Ace and I agreeing means old Satan must be wearing ice skates and long johns because Hades has frozen and we are going to get a major snowstorm. over.:jump::lol::ylsuper::walk::thumb::thumb::clap::banana::sssh::bunny:

 

I was amazed myself! :scared:

 

For the record, I agree with you both.

First bolded, big whopping no. Two different pots of money. School systems have several different pots of money and most cannot be moved from one pot to another. Construction money CANNOT be used for salaries.

 

So, when the kids get better things to learn you are counting that as a big benefit to the teachers.:thumb: stretching there but okay.

 

On your last two paragraphs, my understanding is that most of the construction money wouldn't be spent till 2010. Heard that somewhere. So, yes, no short term benefit here.

 

On the Dems argument, I agree. And one of the reasons I liked McCain who pledged he would send such bills with added on spending to get it through back vetoed. THis is the game of politics that goes on in DC that is ruining this country. It was the BIGGEST SOURCE OF DISAPPOINTMENT I had when the Reps had both WHite House and Congress in their control.

 

I agree that once money gets put into the construction pot it can not be moved. However, I am not convinced that if the federal goverment filled up the school construction pot for the state, that state funds would not be freed up for other items including (but not necessarily only for) teachers salaries. In other words, the question isn't if money can be shifted between pots, it's how much does it affect the total amount of money that gets put into each pot.

Does zero good when you have kids that don't care to learn and worthless parents that couldn't care less about their kids learning.

 

So qualified, inspired teachers make no difference? You are wrong very wrong about this.:cry:

So qualified, inspired teachers make no difference? You are wrong very wrong about this.:cry:

No, I'm not. It doesn't matter how good the teacher is, how inspiring or how nice the facility is, if a kid couldn't care less about learning it won't matter if their parents have the same outlook. It starts at home whether you like it or not.

No, I'm not. It doesn't matter how good the teacher is, how inspiring or how nice the facility is, if a kid couldn't care less about learning it won't matter if their parents have the same outlook. It starts at home whether you like it or not.

 

Research has long since put this notion to bed. Strong teachers can make a difference regardless of home life.

 

FWIW I see it everyday.

Research has long since put this notion to bed. Strong teachers can make a difference regardless of home life.

 

FWIW I see it everyday.

Funny, I see the problem as bad if not worse than it ever was. Just take a look at Chicago, Cincinnati or anywhere else. I've seen them put money into these schools, attract good teachers and the problem still remains. How does this research you mention answer this?

No, I'm not. It doesn't matter how good the teacher is, how inspiring or how nice the facility is, if a kid couldn't care less about learning it won't matter if their parents have the same outlook. It starts at home whether you like it or not.

 

RTS, I have to agree with Aces and Camel on this. I have seen it, too. The best, most inspiring teachers can't save them all, but for every one that you do, you see the effect in the people that they become and the families that they start. This causes me to smile when I think back to some of the success stories that I have been able to be involved with.

 

You are correct that the lack of parental support (or caring of any nature) puts some kids at a HUGE disadvantage.