Public education in Nevada is again being threatened with slashes
in funding – but there are two sides to every story. The recent budget
spotlight is prompted by Governor Jim Gibbons’ proposed state budget,
which has cut funding for public education. This follows two previous
funding cuts that led to eliminated programs and staff layoffs. Now,
additional services, classes and employees are in jeopardy, and
increased college tuition rates are a real possibility. But many
contend that Nevada’s public education system is long overdue for a
thorough audit.
Before the first reduction in government subsidy in December 2007,
the public education system was making headlines for under-performance.
Among other concerns, growing numbers of students were failing the high
school proficiency exam; the high school dropout rate was elevated; and
the college graduation rate was low. Today, both academic and financial
problems plague the Silver State’s entire public education system.
“There really is a crisis in education at all levels,” said David Ashley, president of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
School officials claim they need more funding whereas others want
greater accountability from our educational institutions. All eyes are
on Nevada’s legislators to see if and how they address these issues.
“This state is really at a crossroads with the decisions they
have to make and the stand they’re going to take with regard to a
fundamental need in this community—education,” said Paul Dugan,
superintendent of Washoe County School District (WCSD).
K-12: Academic Shortfalls
The kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) component of the
state’s public education system is failing many of its students and
needs reform, said Patrick Gibbons (no relation to Gov. Gibbons),
education policy analyst at the Nevada Policy Research Institute
(NPRI), a nonprofit organization that researches public policy issues
affecting the state.
In 2007, only 57 percent of Nevada’s fourth graders could read at a
basic level, according to National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP) exam results. Minority students fared worse than their peers.
Only 42 percent of African Americans and 42 percent of Hispanics read
at a basic level. Complicating this issue is many students entering
first grade are unable to speak any English, said Walt Rulffes,
superintendent of the Clark County School District (CCSD).
About 56 percent of Washoe County high school students (and a
lower percentage in Clark County) earn a diploma. “I think that’s
shameful,” said Rulffes. “Our graduation rates are much too low and our
dropout rates are much too high.”
Silver State students do not graduate because they can easily
land jobs, are not engaged in school, and/or lack sufficient credits,
or fail the proficiency exam and give up, Rulffes added.
Additional challenges for CCSD are the 40-plus percent
transiency rate, students who change schools during the year, and the
27 percent remediation rate, students who still need remedial classes.
These problems have intensified because no government-imposed
accountability measures are in place, Gibbons said. Schools and
personnel that perform poorly do not face consequences. Also, little
competition exists in the Nevada system, and parents have few or no
school choices, he added.
WCSD and CCSD have made efforts to improve the academic problems
at their schools. For example, the WCSD’s New Horizons pilot program
puts academically struggling second graders in an intense, 15-month
program, Dugan said. Another, Jump Start, is a summer program for
eighth graders at risk of dropping out.
CCSD requires all high school freshmen to take
college-preparation classes unless their parents opt them out, Rulffes
said. It has instituted full-day kindergarten when possible, launched
five technical academies and opened 17 empowerment schools (schools
with fewer restrictions, greater autonomy and incentive pay).
“The community should look for and expect school choice throughout the district,” Rulffes added.
Funding Issues for K-12
K-12 education in Nevada is underfunded, and further budget
cuts will degrade the quality of education provided, Dugan and Rulffes
agreed. However, NPRI’s Gibbons said that K-12’s problem is wasteful
and unnecessary spending rather than insufficient funding.
“They have more than enough money to educate these students,” he added. “They’re not spending it wisely.”
Dugan and Rulffes said they’re doing everything they can to use the
district’s funds efficiently. CCSD has reduced its energy costs by
about $7 million annually, cut 12 percent of its administrative costs,
generated about $15 million in corporate funding and instituted the ISO
9000 program (standards to ensure efficiency), among other efforts.
“We’ve been as creative as we can,” Rulffes said. “We’ll just
have to cut deeper into those program areas and cut services to
students. We’re going to be placed in a position where we’re not even
going to be able to hold our own.”
WCSD has left district-level positions open, has impartial
committees that oversee district spending, is developing a budget
process where every potential dollar spent can be tied to the
district’s strategic plan, and has a 2 to 4 percent “rainy day” fund,
Dugan said.
“We’ve been trying to be conservative and good stewards of the taxpayers’ money,” Dugan said.
Parents and taxpayers need to know how the school districts are
spending their money, Gibbons said. Both WCSD and CCSD are audited
annually, the results of which are public. Rulffes said he welcomes
ideas for greater transparency. Whereas WCSD is as open about spending
as possible, Dugan said, perhaps it could better inform the public
about goings on.
Possible Solutions
Rulffes said he hopes the Legislature allows for more high
school options, student transportation funding, increased autonomy for
schools and assistance for non-English speaking students.
The “optimistic hope,” Dugan said, “is the Legislature comes up
with a plan that permanently addresses funding. There have to be
additional revenue sources. We cannot continue to rely on the
unreliable.”
Rather than looking to the government for solutions, Gibbons
said, education needs privatization, along with more private and
charter schools, tuition tax credits for parents and/or some type of
corporate tuition tax credit program (Senate Bill 289 proposes this),
in which corporations or private individuals could donate to nonprofit
organizations that in turn would provide scholarships to low-income
students. These would result in greater choices for students, Gibbons
said, and thereby address the inequality in education.
“We have to open up competition to be more market-based than we’ve been,” Rulffes said.
Gibbons advocates accountability practices and suggests teachers
be paid based on merit (Assembly Bill 453 recommends this). Schools
should be ranked on performance and those that consistently score badly
should be closed. Value-added assessments that track individuals’
achievements over time could be used.
Gibbons, however, doesn’t expect great changes in K-12 education,
at least this year. “If Nevada doesn’t implement reforms, we’re going
to be stuck in the same formula, which is spend more and don’t worry
about accountability and results,” Gibbons said. “That’s a recipe for
disaster.”
In the future, Rulffes expects additional pressure from the
community and workforce to increase the state’s high school graduation
rate and the quality of the graduates.
Coming Up Short In Higher Education
The primary problems with public postsecondary education in Nevada mirror those of K-12 with too few students graduating.
“The schools have a responsibility to educate these students and
provide them with skills,” Gibbons said. “They need to get radically
innovative, actually educate students and improve graduation rates.”
In 2006, the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), graduated 48.8
percent of its total student population within six years, according to
The Education Trust, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to the
academic achievement of students. Over the six-year period, 40.8
percent of Latinos and 35.6 percent of African Americans graduated.
This compares to the 49.7 percent of whites who graduated.
In comparison, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV),
graduated 39.2 percent of students. About 39.6 percent of Latinos and
29.4 percent of African Americans graduated, compared to 39.1 percent
of whites.
Both university presidents acknowledged graduation rates are a
problem and a priority. For example, this year UNLV opened its Academic
Success Center, which provides tutoring, advising and other support for
first-time freshmen and transfer students. It created a new student
union and a recreation facility (with student fees) to improve the
campus climate and culture.
UNR is working to create a “sticky campus,” a place where students
are engaged in all it offers, said Dr. Milton Glick, president of the
University of Nevada, Reno. The university has involved more senior
faculty in lower division education and appointed course concierges,
who help students get needed courses. It also is improving its advising
services and encouraging students to take full course loads.
Gibbons said the four-year universities’ admission standards are
too lax. Stricter requirements would weed out those who statistically
likely will not graduate. Yet, Glick believes the solution is merely a
matter of adding more top students.
In fact, the required grade point average in core high school
classes for admission has increased over the past three years to 3.0
from 2.5.
Flawed System
Higher education’s biggest problem is the state’s education funding
model, said Dr. Michael Richards, president of the College of Southern
Nevada, a two-year community college. Not all of a student’s tuition
remains at the institution paid. Instead, 64 cents of every tuition
dollar paid to a four-year university goes to the state while 76 cents
of every dollar paid to community colleges goes to the state.
Also, Richards said, the government pays varying amounts per
full-time-equivalent student to different higher education
institutions, based on a formula. For example, the amount given to
community colleges differs from that given to four-year universities.
“The net effect of that formula is to perpetuate a funding inequity
that is so grave that it impedes the ability of institutions like ours
to meet the needs of students,” Richards said. “After a decade at CSN,
we now can document, and the Regents have accepted, a $20-million
inequity in our funding.”
Nevada’s policy is to fund higher education at 85 percent of the
national average, which, “Further impedes the ability of institutions
to rise above a level of mediocrity to move forward,” said Richards.
The instability of the government’s education subsidy is
preventing better results in academic outcomes, Ashley said. Over the
past two years, UNLV has had to cut $25 million or 8 percent from its
budget, UNR, $20 million or 11 percent. UNLV’s annual student
enrollment is about 28,000. UNR’s is about 17,000 students.
Unlike UNLV, UNR and CSN, the University of Southern Nevada
(USN) is not government subsidized but, rather, subsists solely on
tuition (95 percent) and donations. Not relying on the government
affords this non-profit, private, regional health sciences university
financial clarity.
“We can easily calculate what our enrollments are going to be,
and the tuition, so we can plan fairly definitively as to what our
operation is going to cost,” said Harry Rosenberg, the founder and
president.
USN only adds new programs after a complex feasibility study is
done and when financing is certain. The university has grown steadily
since opening in 1999, now offering Pharmacy, Masters of Business
Administration, Nursing and Orthodontics programs at its Henderson
campus.
In-state, undergraduate tuition rates at UNR and UNLV are more than
$2,000 lower than the national average for a four-year, public
university, according to the College Board’s “Trends in College
Pricing.” Gibbons said this discourages private colleges from opening
in Nevada and falsely encourages students to assume the risk of trying
to obtain a degree.
“We’re in a higher education bubble right now,” he said. “We’re
inducing students to go to college, and they’re not graduating.”
Nevada System of Higher Education’s Chancellor James Rogers has
indicated that increased college tuition rates would result should the
system suffer additional funding cuts. Ashley and Glick agreed their
students are open to paying more only if their money stays on campus
and they see a return.
Gibbons said Nevada’s higher education was well funded before
cuts and remains so today. “It’s a vicious cycle of spend more,
meanwhile we’re not educating.”
Ashley, Glick and Richards all said they cannot eliminate
anything else at their schools without negatively affecting students.
UNLV has left 364 positions open, cancelled 1,000 class sessions,
decreased support for administrative functions and more.
“Any more cuts and I think we’re going to have to start
eliminating programs that are in high demand by both students and
employers,” he added.
UNR has eliminated many support programs for students, including
its writing center, career development center and oral history program.
It has moved some programs, such as marching band, to soft money,
meaning they operate only with private versus state funding. It
eliminated equestrian studies, downsized other areas of study, reduced
facilities maintenance and consolidated a handful of programs into a
single division of health sciences.
CSN’s efforts include eliminating two administrators, increasing
the minimum class size to 15 from 12 and requiring students to pay a
per-credit, 2.75 percent surcharge.
The Road Ahead
University officials believe a consistent influx of state money
will help them better serve their students. Glick said he hopes the
Legislature finds a way to minimize damage to the university and allow
greater flexibility in how schools spend money. Richards would like to
see an allocation toward bridging the funding inequity CSN has
experienced, some capital improvement funds (and a long shot he admits)
the state’s funding formula bumped up past 85 percent of the national
average (SB2 suggests this). Ashley said he believes legislators
realize education needs stable funding and will increase the state’s
investment in it.
Legislators should be concerned about results rather than money,
Gibbons said. “They need a way to tie the spending of money to
results,” he added. “The problem is that we don’t focus on results.”
Glick agreed. Accordingly, he’s outlined university goals and
associated them with metrics for accountability purposes. Those goals
include improving retention rates, fostering a culture of completion
and enhancing quality of the educational experience.
“I think we ought to be judged on the students we graduate—are
they well educated? Are they effective in their jobs? Do we graduate
enough of them? Is the cost of that product, if you will, reasonable
relative to other places,” Glick added.
For the future of public higher education in Nevada, Gibbons
sees more spending and no results. “It’s very unfortunate,” he added.
“We’re really harming our students, and the state itself is getting no
benefit.”
Glick is more optimistic and said he believes higher education
will make progress but not overnight. “We will serve our state
hopefully better in the future than we have served them historically,”
he said.
At all levels, education is a backbone to our state. Nevada’s
children deserve to have the best education available and it’s
everyone’s responsibility to ensure that happens. When looking to the
future, educators and government alike should work together to increase
the quality of education in the state.
