Here's the thing: Better educated people are less likely to turn to crime. Part of the reason we spend so much on prisons is that we refuse to spend enough on schools. Also, I don't really care if some guy gets rearrested for smoking pot after he gets released from jail after being arrested for smoking pot. Sure, it breeds contempt for the criminal justice system, but to be honest, as it presently is here in Oklahoma, it deserves contempt. Violent criminals need to be locked up, with rare exception. Nonviolent criminals probably don't.
Also, with the never ending creep of misdemeanors being turned into felonies, it makes it difficult to impossible for petty offenders to get their lives back on track.
Regarding school capital spending, at least in the case of new heating/cooling and other energy efficiency upgrades, that work helps, over the long term, to free up money for operating expenses, like teacher salaries. To some degree our schools and our roads are in similar situations. We've been dumping a relatively large amount of money into our roads the last couple of years and it's hardly made a dent due to the decades of deferred maintenance. So it goes with the schools. Dumping money on them won't change anything this year or next, but over the longer term it will put them in a better position to educate more of Oklahoma's children.
The key to both of these issues is eliminating poverty. Education is one of the best ways to do that. With education, the parents who many of you look down on for being uninvolved will be able to get better jobs and work few enough hours to support their family that they can get involved in their child's education. It's hard to do that after 14-16 hours a day on the job(s).
I believe everyone agrees that better educated people are less prone to crime, except for the "banksters" and Shrub's buddies at Enron, of course.
There's a misconception on energy efficiency programs- the payback can often be as long as ten years. The total upgrade program Honeywell, JCI, Trane, Carrier, etc. market are based on 10 year paybacks. Those programs involve lighting, building energy management systems, and HVAC equipment. That's all great if the equipment doesn't require a heavy over-haul or replacement in 10 years
and if it's still operating as efficiently as it was originally designed for
and it's all been maintained properly. Those are all scenarios that seldom play out as presented. If natural gas were to remain at $8 to $10 per dekatherm, it's easy to show great paybacks, when it's staying in the $4.00 range, there's not much payback to be had, as electric rates will also trend with NG to an extent.
These companies regularly make changes to their BAS software and sensors. There's a lot of obsolescence in these systems in a 10 year span. As parts fail, you have to upgrade to the new platform. These companies don't stay in business by selling one-off systems, they stay in business by creating customers for life. I'm also quite well aware that school systems mostly only employ maintenance workers who have basic knowledge of mechanical systems, and the systems seldom get the regular PM's as recommended because those departments seem to be chronically under-staffed due to budget constraints.
Certainly there are energy savings to be had, but they are not as great as you think when you start looking at what the costs are to attain and maintain them.
Also, remember each principal and administrator in a school system has their own little fiefdom. One is never willing to turn their budget money loose to another department if they don't need it. Many school systems have "use it or lose it" budgeting. If a department doesn't spend all their money one year, they lose what they don't spend. I have literally seen stacks of flourescent tubes and 55 gallon drums of floor wax in school warehouses which won't be consumed in five years because a department head did an end of year spending spree with left-over funds instead of simply allowing those funds to go back to the general fund for re-distribution to where they might be needed. Lower operating costs finding their way into hiring more teachers is actually a very hard trick.
I've worked with a lot of school districts over the last 16 years and seen a whole lot of waste and wasteful habits. Something many citizens are not aware of is "use it or lose it" budgeting. There's a lot of waste we pay for as a reult of that in so many different government agencies.
Conservatives and Liberals are always going to be at an impasse when it comes to how to improve education. Liberals seem to think throwing money at a problem makes it better and conservatives assume many problems can be changed by altering people's behavior and emphasizing personal responsibility.
I don't look down upon someone who is working two jobs, 16 hours a day. There are plenty of kids having successful educational experiences in two income households or even where there's only one parent working two jobs. Those children are getting a better view of work ethic and having that instilled in themselves. The problem parents, for the most part, are the ones who are barely working one job, or none completely by choice or mired in drug and alcohol addiction.
/edit: And along the lines of what The Artist added: I heard ads from both sides on TV this morning over breakfast. I'm amazed at the money being spent on this issue. It's all about special interests fighting over YOUR tax dollars. I too am entirely disturbed by making a constitutional amendment without so much as specific performance goals. This was not too dissimilar to why I loathed the river tax plan. They basically said: "Give us the money and we will know what to do with it. Details are unimportant, just give us the money. Trust us."
