Reform Of Nevada Education Morass Needs To Be A Top Priority
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
If you keep doing what you’re doing – you are going to keep getting what you are getting. That’s as true of our current education system as it is with the election process which continues to send the same legislative attitudes to Carson City to push the voting buttons.
Early in January, Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons offered ideas on ways to change directions with an education system that isn’t working. Those recommendations were not welcomed with open arms by legislative leaders who prefer to use the education system as the reason for expanding state revenue. More money seems to be the only idea that these advocates want to consider, paying more attention to their interpretations of where the state ranks in the nation’s hierarchy of money spent on education – than what taxpayers are getting for the dollars being spent.
Education is one aspect of the quality of life areas assigned to the Nevada Vision Stakeholders group that is working to identify where the state should aspire to be in the next 5, 10 and 20 year time spans. From information relating to various measurements of education, the level of Nevada’s funding rankings should be the least of the things we should be worrying about. If we want to fret over being last in educational areas – the poor showing in performance metrics should be the top concerns for attention.
Although the special session will probably take up the issue of including educational performance with an eye on teacher evaluation the purpose is more based on making the state eligible for federal special funding than actual improvement of students’ learning. Concentration on the shortcomings of how the present system is failing to deliver education must be addressed with a variety of reform measures.
Nevada Farm Bureau public policy positions call for the enhancement of Nevada education through the infusion of increased competition, initiating a voucher system which will allow parents to send their children to educational providers who earn the educational dollars being expended. A voucher proposal in the 2009 Nevada Legislature didn’t even get the chance for discussion, indicating that the political party which currently rules the process aren’t inclined to accept that their teacher union backers should be challenged to excel.
We also encourage the expansion of vocational education area, including vocational agricultural curriculum. Through the offerings of vocational courses we would also anticipate the improvements of state graduation rates, as has been the case in other states where this type of focus has yielded such results.
The unfortunate problem of Governor Gibbon’s education reform proposals is that they will likely not get the full attention that they should receive within the context of a special legislative session which already has the distinction of working to fill a $900 million budget hole. Educational reform is not going to be accomplished through a one-time suggestion…it will require a continued assault of the entrenched institutions who only want more money – instead of better results. Hopefully these ideas will not evaporate, but instead become central ideas for exchange during the 2010 election cycle – then be front and center in the 2011 Nevada Legislature.
If you keep doing what you’re doing – you are going to keep getting what you are getting. That’s as true of our current education system as it is with the election process which continues to send the same legislative attitudes to Carson City to push the voting buttons.
Early in January, Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons offered ideas on ways to change directions with an education system that isn’t working. Those recommendations were not welcomed with open arms by legislative leaders who prefer to use the education system as the reason for expanding state revenue. More money seems to be the only idea that these advocates want to consider, paying more attention to their interpretations of where the state ranks in the nation’s hierarchy of money spent on education – than what taxpayers are getting for the dollars being spent.
Education is one aspect of the quality of life areas assigned to the Nevada Vision Stakeholders group that is working to identify where the state should aspire to be in the next 5, 10 and 20 year time spans. From information relating to various measurements of education, the level of Nevada’s funding rankings should be the least of the things we should be worrying about. If we want to fret over being last in educational areas – the poor showing in performance metrics should be the top concerns for attention.
Although the special session will probably take up the issue of including educational performance with an eye on teacher evaluation the purpose is more based on making the state eligible for federal special funding than actual improvement of students’ learning. Concentration on the shortcomings of how the present system is failing to deliver education must be addressed with a variety of reform measures.
Nevada Farm Bureau public policy positions call for the enhancement of Nevada education through the infusion of increased competition, initiating a voucher system which will allow parents to send their children to educational providers who earn the educational dollars being expended. A voucher proposal in the 2009 Nevada Legislature didn’t even get the chance for discussion, indicating that the political party which currently rules the process aren’t inclined to accept that their teacher union backers should be challenged to excel.
We also encourage the expansion of vocational education area, including vocational agricultural curriculum. Through the offerings of vocational courses we would also anticipate the improvements of state graduation rates, as has been the case in other states where this type of focus has yielded such results.
The unfortunate problem of Governor Gibbon’s education reform proposals is that they will likely not get the full attention that they should receive within the context of a special legislative session which already has the distinction of working to fill a $900 million budget hole. Educational reform is not going to be accomplished through a one-time suggestion…it will require a continued assault of the entrenched institutions who only want more money – instead of better results. Hopefully these ideas will not evaporate, but instead become central ideas for exchange during the 2010 election cycle – then be front and center in the 2011 Nevada Legislature.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 1/31/2010 6:51 AM 
Categories: Nevada Educational Funding
Tags: Nevada Educational Funding Nevada Vision Stakeholders Voucher System Educational Reform
Categories: Nevada Educational Funding
Tags: Nevada Educational Funding Nevada Vision Stakeholders Voucher System Educational Reform
If it were up to me I'd throw out the current proficient exams and replace them with a form 1040EZ and a SF171. I wouldn't fixate on college and would develope vocational tracks for kids who aren't interested in attending college.
I think competition is good. Teens do better when we don't try to manage them in large "herds". I think many small high schools are better than a few large high schools. Competition would allow schools to specialize and appeal to different interests.
Reply to this