How does the recession change the need for teachers?

Rob is right. With the falling values in our homes, many local communities had to either keep property taxes the same, or even lower them. That means less revenue to spend on schools & other local projects. I've seen it happen right in our small community. Another factor is that the Feds have either pulled their funding of many school programs, or sent less dollars to keep those programs running. Less money means someone has to be laid off. The kids lose, in the long run. The Feds have made it easier for local communities to afford certain programs in our schools. When they started pulling their funding a few years ago, many schools could no longer afford to run them. That's why it's never a good idea to get used to Federal dollars. The Feds can then dictate how the programs will run, who runs it, and how long it will run. They don't care if the programs work, or how many lives are affected by lay-offs. And the kids lose. My husband used to drive school bus in our community, so I got an "education" into the world of Federal programs. While it's hard to lose those jobs, I think that it's best to keep the Feds out of our school rooms and let local communities decide what they want their kids to have. The recession doesn't change the need for teachers. It changes the amount of money available to keep schools running. It's affecting every community...some harder than others. But, again, I think it will cause schools to re-think how they're educating our kids, and maybe some quality will start coming forth. There is no such thing as a recession proof job...except for parents, whos job will always be to care for their families to the best of their abilities. <*)))><

Hmm... My debate team's investment only have been given cut back. So did the wide-unfold public conversing team. we don't even comprehend if we visit the subsequent meets. Our activities communities are being scrapped on the tip of the 365 days. There are no supporters allowed at fits anymore because it is too high priced to deliver them. My college, nevertheless run with the aid of the nuns, is deeper in debt than ever. we've a clean scheme "keeping potential with the aid of using much less warmth". they are not turning on the warmth plenty anymore. comparable with the lights fixtures. Oh, and everybody remains a hideous orange shade. and much greater females have bald patches from too plenty hair dye and straightening.

Less money being brought in through taxes means less money for education. The need for teacher is still there and will be exasperated by laying some off.

They could use all of those people, they just can't afford to hire them, so they'll have to get by through having people do more work, people do work they normally wouldn't do, and by cutting corners.

Contrary to what our fearless leader thinks, the government is not immune to recessions, and most local governments can't just ignore that fact. Reagan once said that a rising tide lifts all boats. Well, a falling tide drops them all.

Schools are funded by income and property taxes. Income and property values are both falling, therefore tax revenues are falling. This is why pro-growth economic policies, including tax rate cuts, increase government revenues.

I don't see how it does change the need for teachers - it might mean less money for private school fees that in turn might mean higher class numbers in the state sector but outright demand will still be about the same.

Tax dollars do not come from a pot of gold protected by Lucky the Leprechaun.

There wouldn't be a need to lay off teachers if the Teacher's Union would not mandate pay raises every year.