Comments (24) | Add a comment
How much do we spend to educate our kids?
Tools
SPECIAL TO THE LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
How much do Nevada taxpayers spend to educate every child in the state's K-12 education system? The question is straightforward and objective. Yet the answers to it vary greatly, depending upon the speaker.
School administrators, politicians, union bosses and federal and state bureaucrats all answer this question differently -- while looking at the same figures. All of their answers also differ from what might be expected from a private-sector accountant or entrepreneur.
The chief culprit in this confusion is the complexity of the Silver State's school finance mechanism. The "Nevada Plan," as it's called, requires state lawmakers to determine the "basic support per pupil" amount that will be guaranteed to school districts each year. This "basic support per pupil" amount -- which will rise to $5,263 in the 2011-12 school year -- is often cited by tax-increase advocates who complain that Silver State schools are drastically underfunded compared to other states.
"Basic support," however, should not be confused with "total support." "Basic support" includes only a portion of revenues that accrue directly to local school districts -- namely, a 25-cent property-tax assessment and a statewide sales tax of 2.25 percent (2.6 percent in the current biennium) -- and a supplement from the state's general fund.
Outside of the "basic support" calculation are many locally assessed taxes, including an additional 50-cent property-tax assessment, taxes on vehicular registration and taxes on slot machines. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars flow to school districts through these local taxes, which are regularly ignored by many commentators. "Basic support" figures also exclude roughly $150 million in state general fund resources that are spent each year on class-size reduction.
When all of these revenues are accounted for, per-pupil spending figures begin to escalate dramatically. The U.S. Department of Education reports that Nevada spent $8,187 per pupil in fiscal year 2008 on "current expenditures" -- a 35 percent increase from six years earlier. Even this, however, accounts for only a subset of school expenditures.
Government school administrators often reference "current expenditures" as the amount of spending that actually occurs in the classroom in a given year, even though the category excludes many areas of spending necessary for a school to function. These include employee benefits, the amortized cost of school construction and the interest paid on school bonds.
The U.S. Department of Education does report the per-pupil costs of school building and financing, which combined with "current expenditures" show a total per-pupil funding level in Nevada of $10,378 for the 2007-08 school year.
However, even this federal database does not completely account for all expenditures. For that, one must drill down to the district level and review official budget documents -- then total the expenditures made through various accounts, while excluding expenditures on adult education and community-outreach programs.
A review of budget documents from Nevada's two largest school districts reveals that Clark and Washoe counties spend far more to educate each child than taxpayers are often led to believe. For the 2011-12 school year, the Clark County School District plans to spend a total of $12,369 per pupil ($9,152 on current expenditures), while the Washoe County School District plans to spend $11,390 per pupil ($10,441 on current expenditures).
Unfortunately, there is an amazing lack of uniformity in Nevada school district financial reporting. That makes a systematic review of school district spending difficult -- requiring a detailed and laborious review of budget documents for each individual district. For most people, these differences render the real spending amounts opaque and sow further confusion about true levels of per-pupil funding.
To make informed public-policy decisions, taxpayers and policymakers should be aware of what they are really spending to educate children in the Silver State. Nevada's largest school districts have been spending between $11,000 and $14,000 per pupil, while graduating only half of their students.
By contrast, 84 percent of private schools nationwide charge tuition rates of less than $10,000, while offering smaller class sizes and vastly better outcomes, according to data from the U.S. Department of Education. This reality naturally forces the question: Is public education a task better performed by the government or the private sector?
The Nevada Policy Research Institute has proposed a scholarship program, to be funded through tax-credit-eligible corporate donations. Such a program would encourage a shift toward greater private-sector involvement in the provision of public education. That shift would not only facilitate a profound saving of public money, but would also dramatically increase the quality of educational opportunities available to the next generation of Nevadans.
If policymakers allow themselves to face the true costs and dismal performance of the current government monopoly on public education, they will be forced to foster such alternatives.
Geoffrey Lawrence is deputy director of policy at the Nevada Policy Research Institute. For more, visit http://npri.org.
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
People keep complaining how kids these days keep getting stupid and stupid. I for one believe education should be free; it would make our community so much better.
Obviously the problem is we don't spend enough! Spend more to show you really care.
It's not agbout the plan, the money, or the school district personnel. It's about the parents. Period!
Prod Dimocrat, why do liberals lie? Why do you lie? Have you always been a liar?
That "per-pupil" figure is an almost meaningless accounting statistic. CCSD doesn't properly account for its cost of revenues.
CCSD receives ~30% of the State's General Fund. By some wonkish formulae it also receives a big chunk of local property/sales tax revenues. That money doesn't really come free. We as taxpayers spend a LOT of money on the huge tax collecting bureaucracy necessary to grab it. For example:
NV Dept of Taxation
NV Gaming Control Board
The Justice System, ie cops, Judges, and court staff, which basically generate fines earmarked for CCSD.
The Clark County Assessor's Office
The list of professional coffee drinkers goes on and on.
Yet through the magic of government accounting (ie use of the General "slush" Fund) CCSD doesn't have to incorporate those costs. They're just allocated to those other executive branch accounts.
It's a shell game.
I don't have the numbers in front on me, but the amount we spend on such bureaucrats must easily add up to another $200+M which we spend on CCSD (but isn't counted).
And let's not forget that the government *deputizes* the private sector as tax collectors, ie it doesn't award "sales commissions" to merchants and casinos for collecting the taxes. This in violation of our constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude. What the government reports in consumer-driven tax receipts should really be reduced by ~10% (ie "net sales"). A third of those logical commissions should *also* count as money spent on CCSD.
'CentennialMom' (1001) wrote: What do you do with children in foster care? What do you do with children who have parents who have to work 2 jobs to pay the bills?
Under the Nevada Constitution, elementary education is supposed to be "free" (meaning government funded) for desperately poor kids. I suppose that most kids in foster care would qualify.
I dare say that most two-wage couples are not choosing to go that route to keep the electricity from being turned off, but rather, to afford *luxuries* like a nice home (or several), new cars, exotic summer vacations, and so forth. Those couples should NOT be receiving tax subsidies in the form of "free" education. They should be prioritizing their family spending so as to send their kids to *private* schools. Either that, or they should be charged a USER FEE in the amount of $15,000/y PER KID.
I am so SICK of reading that comment to the effect that "either we pay for schools now or prisons later". We pay plenty for BOTH *today*, and no doubt some huge percentage of prison inmates convicted of violent crimes are products of public education.
a scholarship program, to be funded through tax-credit-eligible corporate donations
The BIG Government conservatives hath spoken.
The GOP's favorite stranglehold over the economy: the US Tax Code.
Still, NPRI's analysis of NV public sector's financial accounting is about as good as you'll find. After mine, of course.
Businesses and benefactors already fund scholarships, matching gifts, etc. We don't need more regulations or credits to "encourage" them. The lawyers and accountants already have it pretty good.
Look at the MacKay Mining School at UNR, and the corresponding schools of Law, Media/Urban, etc at UNLV. How much RINO Raggio donate out of his own pocket to pay for the NSHE facilities named after him?
*** Previous post censored ***
It seems the libertarians (stossel is a big one) would not only let him die it would let him remain illterate...free to be stupid...free to be dead....that is the libertarian vision of america
Brick and mortar schools and school buses should be phased out. Of course they could be used for baby sitting children. Hundred or thousands of children could be taught at home by computers. Then the parent would certainly be involved and held responsible They do it in Australia. They do it individuality or in neighborhood groups with one parent or adult in charge.
Franklin, David, & Blogspot are just examples of people not involved in education but because they attended school they feel like experts. With their philosophy if you have watched and played hockey for years then you know exactly how to win the Stanley Cup. There is no silver bullet when you deal with so many different personalities and back grounds. Thats the point, have everybody play by the same rules or stop comparing apples to lug nuts.