Report On Educational Funding In Nevada Some Interesting Information To Ponder
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The focus on Nevada’s educational funding needs to be redirected, concentrating on what we are getting for the dollars spent -- as opposed to the amounts that are being spent. Although the 2009 Nevada Legislative Session will accomplish next to nothing in this regard, perhaps through grassroots discussion and continued emphasis those elected to represent Nevada citizens in the future can be engaged to consider a different perspective than the present
In their rally cries for “Give Us More!” the self-serving interests of educational bureaucrats and teacher union representatives wrap their justification, on a K-12 basis, in the simple context that Nevada ranks poorly in the listing for how much do states dole out support on a per-pupil basis.
Some notable concepts that were included in the policy paper, “Funding Fantasies – Nevada K-12 Education Spends More Than You Think”
"Public school finance is a world where relatively arbitrary accounting categories are regularly deployed to give parents and taxpayers overly modest impressions of existing spending. In reality:
As the parent of a fifth grade student in the Washoe County School District, I was especially interested in reading these details:
“The Washoe County School District budget reported to the Nevada Department of Taxation in May 2008 yielded a per-pupil expenditure of $11,395 (weighted enrollment). Total Washoe County School District expenditures are nearly double those in the district’s general fund. The per-pupil expenditure level implied by Superintendent Dugan ignores spending of $248 million in the $705 million 2008-09 school year budget. Roughly 27 percent of all salaries and benefits paid by the Washoe County School District are not counted as part of its operating expenses. Washoe County School District employs approximately one staff member for every nine students.”
In his conclusion of his research paper, policy analyst Patrick Gibbons observes –
“This paper has shown that per-pupil spending in Nevada not only is actually much higher than the public education establishment wants to acknowledge, but that spending has also rapidly increased. Yet the fact remains that student achievement has not seen significant gains. It is apparent that here in Nevada, as around the country, public education spending is being routed into ineffective and wasteful programs. Nevertheless, the Silver State for decades has been going through the motions of attempting to reform its dysfunctional schools.
Together, these two facts strongly suggest that the real priority of Nevada’s public school establishment — and, indeed, state lawmakers — is not in fact the good of the state’s young people. Instead, distributing checks for the system’s adult employees and favored vendors appears to be the overriding concern.
Leaders honestly seeking to make the public schools responsive to students would end the disempowerment the State of Nevada imposes on students’ parents. They would allow the public funds necessary to educate a student to follow that student and encourage greater financial control at the level of the local school, rather than the district.
This is the most direct, humane and cost-effective solution to the plight of Nevada parents, their children and, indeed, the entire statewide community.
With such vast resources, averaging more than $13,000 per pupil, Nevada needs no increase in education funding. What it needs, rather, is sound fiscal management, rational budgeting and greater accountability.”
The focus on Nevada’s educational funding needs to be redirected, concentrating on what we are getting for the dollars spent -- as opposed to the amounts that are being spent. Although the 2009 Nevada Legislative Session will accomplish next to nothing in this regard, perhaps through grassroots discussion and continued emphasis those elected to represent Nevada citizens in the future can be engaged to consider a different perspective than the present
In their rally cries for “Give Us More!” the self-serving interests of educational bureaucrats and teacher union representatives wrap their justification, on a K-12 basis, in the simple context that Nevada ranks poorly in the listing for how much do states dole out support on a per-pupil basis.
Some notable concepts that were included in the policy paper, “Funding Fantasies – Nevada K-12 Education Spends More Than You Think”
"Public school finance is a world where relatively arbitrary accounting categories are regularly deployed to give parents and taxpayers overly modest impressions of existing spending. In reality:
- In Nevada, the true spending amount on K-12 education during the 2008-09 school year averaged $13,052 per pupil.
- Per-pupil expenditures during that period ranged from a low of $10,889 in Churchill County to a high of $49,551 in Eureka County.
- Although the Clark County School District officially reports per-pupil spending for the 2008-09 school year will be $7,175, the actual true cost per pupil will be $13,387.
- Only 34 percent of the Clark County School District budget goes into instruction.
- Washoe County School District’s actual cost per pupil is approximately $11,393.
- Both the Clark and Washoe county districts employ at least one fulltime equivalent staff member for every 10 students enrolled.
- Per charter-school pupil, Nevada spent just $6,746 during the 2008-09 school year."
As the parent of a fifth grade student in the Washoe County School District, I was especially interested in reading these details:
“The Washoe County School District budget reported to the Nevada Department of Taxation in May 2008 yielded a per-pupil expenditure of $11,395 (weighted enrollment). Total Washoe County School District expenditures are nearly double those in the district’s general fund. The per-pupil expenditure level implied by Superintendent Dugan ignores spending of $248 million in the $705 million 2008-09 school year budget. Roughly 27 percent of all salaries and benefits paid by the Washoe County School District are not counted as part of its operating expenses. Washoe County School District employs approximately one staff member for every nine students.”
In his conclusion of his research paper, policy analyst Patrick Gibbons observes –
“This paper has shown that per-pupil spending in Nevada not only is actually much higher than the public education establishment wants to acknowledge, but that spending has also rapidly increased. Yet the fact remains that student achievement has not seen significant gains. It is apparent that here in Nevada, as around the country, public education spending is being routed into ineffective and wasteful programs. Nevertheless, the Silver State for decades has been going through the motions of attempting to reform its dysfunctional schools.
Together, these two facts strongly suggest that the real priority of Nevada’s public school establishment — and, indeed, state lawmakers — is not in fact the good of the state’s young people. Instead, distributing checks for the system’s adult employees and favored vendors appears to be the overriding concern.
Leaders honestly seeking to make the public schools responsive to students would end the disempowerment the State of Nevada imposes on students’ parents. They would allow the public funds necessary to educate a student to follow that student and encourage greater financial control at the level of the local school, rather than the district.
This is the most direct, humane and cost-effective solution to the plight of Nevada parents, their children and, indeed, the entire statewide community.
With such vast resources, averaging more than $13,000 per pupil, Nevada needs no increase in education funding. What it needs, rather, is sound fiscal management, rational budgeting and greater accountability.”
Posted by Doug Busselman at 5/9/2009 8:21 AM 
Categories: Nevada Educational Funding
Tags: Nevada State Budget Education Per Pupil Funding
Categories: Nevada Educational Funding
Tags: Nevada State Budget Education Per Pupil Funding
Comments