Comments (14) | Add a comment
Steve Sebelius
Education budget fight is a war over mere scraps
As ever, it was lobbyist Billy Vassiliadis who called it. As lawmakers sat down to vote on restoring money to the proposed schools budget Tuesday, Vassiliadis bluntly put things in perspective.
"We're restoring to what?" he asked. "To being 45th or 49th (in per pupil spending) in the best case?"
Indeed, no matter how much lawmakers eventually put back into the schools budget, Nevada is unlikely to climb out of its funding basement. To do that would require real money, figures that start with the letter "B." And that money simply isn't there.
That's true even after Gov. Brian Sandoval's plan to direct to schools about $275 million in additional funds that the state's Economic Forum says will roll in during the next two years. Sandoval's politically deft handling of that money can't erase the fact Nevada's school spending was inadequate even during the boom times.
Since then, the recession has taken its toll, and help is not on the way. As journalist and author Robert Scherer drolly noted during last weekend's Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, while big banks at the heart of the financial crisis have been bailed out, states have not been made whole. And while one-time federal stimulus funds (peanuts compared to the bailout) helped Nevada balance its books in the past, that's not going to happen this time.
Lawmakers are left with difficult choices. On Tuesday, they addressed some.
In particular, the joint Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees rejected a proposal by Sandoval to use at least $232 million of school district bond reserve funds for ongoing operations.
"Taking money from school districts is not the answer," said Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, who noted the governor started out recommending about $425 million in bond reserve funds, but was forced to lower his estimate as numbers were crunched.
But even if the numbers penciled out, Horsford said, the policy is bad. After all, once the funds are used, they're gone. What's the state going to do two years from now when it's faced with a hole of at least $232 million? In a bit of political serendipity, even the conservative Nevada Policy Research Institute -- a frequent Horsford critic -- agreed using bond funds for ongoing expenses was bad policy.
Republicans on the joint committee had a repeated complaint that surfaced throughout Tuesday's hearing: How can budget decisions be made before the state first knows how much money is available to spend? Put another way, since Democrats have put off having a "revenue" (read: tax) discussion until the budgets are finished, isn't creating what amounts to a fiscal wish list and then figuring out how to pay for it backwards?
It's an eminently reasonable complaint. Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, chairwoman of the Ways and Means Committee, said the Legislature's job is to decide its priorities first. "There will certainly be discussion on how this budget is funded or if it is (funded) at all," she said.
Yes, but that decision will come after budgets have been formalized, when the tendency is to raise money to reach a particular number, rather than to organize priorities around what the state has to spend.
It's not to say the priorities conversation doesn't need to happen. Vassiliadis said as much before the hearing. "Education is an investment, not an expense," he said. "As an investment, we expect a return."
But like all good investments, the more you put in, the more you earn. And for Nevada, no matter how the budget battles end up, that number won't be nearly enough.
Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist, and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. His column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. Reach him at 387-5276 or at ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
@Slam Dunk. A negative return on investment can not be over turned by the will of the courts. I know they believe they are gods, but alas, such is not the case. A bad investment is a bad investment is a bad investment. Get it yet? Sure, they can throw more of our money at the bad investment in attempt to make it look good but at the core it is still a bad investment that will continue to give up poor returns.
Athos, Waiting for Superman is seriously flawed. Their sole focus was charter schools. So, let’s look at Nevada's biggest charter school. None of their seniors passed the state's proficiency exam. Their valedictorian could not generate a passing score to enter college. That would be the reason in Sandoval's education proposal he wanted charter schools to be exempt from taking state mandated tests. Just another way to privatize education and have less taxes the corporations are going to pay. Nevada has never funded education than from being at the bottom. Money does matter. Just ask the worst teams in baseball and football. Both the Pittsburgh Pirates and Carolina Panthers had the lowest payroll and the worst record.
David, This is America. Courts do have the power to increase state budgets. See how the Republicans in Kansas Legislature had to increase spending on education or go to jail. Unions have not lied about that, but you have AGAIN. Your opinions are irrelevant.
Every thinking adult in this state should be required to watch the movie, "Waiting for Superman". THEN we can have an educated discussion.
@Slam Dunk. Courts do not have the ability to over turn the laws of economics. Their ruling on this matter are irrelevant. Numbers don't lie, but unions do.
Patrick, Your math is wacked. Nevada is near or dead last in per pupil spending and your analysis that we spent too much money? Crazy Let's see tthe past twenty years the school district easily doubled the amount of students, probably more. You say 180% increase is too much? That would not be enough to keep up with the growth. You said,"Does spending improve student achievement? The answer is no." In 29 of the 30 cases in which state courts have considered the issue, the courts have ruled that “money matters.” One North Carolina judge concluded, “Only a fool would find that money does not matter in education.” You would be that fool. The public and academic and legal experts all know that “money matters” in education. Multiple studies in multiple states show the same thing: money targeted for proven instructional strategies leads to higher student achievement. Key resources, such as teachers and buildings, cost money. You are not an expert, just a former teacher who soldout to the big bucks.
Patrick R. Gibbons continues to post without identifying himself as part of Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI), a right-wing group, and stating that he is getting paid to share his opinions. His education and economic conclusions are based on NPRI's conservative, anti-government ideology, and not on an either bi-partisan or non-partisan examination of the numbers. The Corporate backed NPRI ignores any numbers it doesn't see as benefiting its ideological approach to statistical analysis. This is the reason why NPRI's policy proposals get completely dismissed in legislative committees.
Hmmm...a powerful lobbyist from the South complains that we're not fully funding education, while his partner in the North pulls the strings that control the governor's budget policy. That's rich.
The idiots roar. It was your republican president that pushed no child left behind. The results of special education and non English speaking students in regular classrooms have increased the costs of education and is detrimental to the rest of the students. Figure this stuff out and you will have your answer. More money spent and less to show for it. Thank you George. Of course, don't come up with something original. Just keep repeating the same crap in every post. That requires less thinking and is less challenging.
And Minden 63, why do you hate teachers? Were they bad to you in school. Did you miss out on education while they were being bad to you. Poor little you. If you ever have an original argument, please post it.
Does spending improve student achievement? The answer is no. I've put up some evidence here: http://www.thewesternwrangler.com/2011/04/does-increasing-spending-improve.html