Where I Stand — Guest Columnist Perry Rogers: An honest debate

Friday, Aug. 27, 2004 | 3:55 a.m.

Editor's note: In August the Where I Stand column is turned over to guest writers. Today's columnist is Perry Rogers. In addition to being a lawyer and agent for Andre Agassi and Shaquille O'Neal, Rogers also is president of the Andre Agassi Charitable Foundation.

WEEKEND EDITION

August 28 - 29, 2004

The best piece of advice that I ever got from my dad came the day after I finished law school. He took me out to lunch and I recall him saying, "Remember this: Lawyers have a bad habit of saying 'no.' They feel that they are paid to simply identify the problems. So they will tell you, 'No, we shouldn't do this' or 'No, we shouldn't try that.' But there is no honor in that.

"The lawyers that do that are not earning their money. For they are not paid to simply recognize the problem. They are paid to solve it. Besides, the toughest part of the problem is discerning the solution."

As always, my father's advice was appropriate. Still, the audience of which he spoke may have been too narrow. Not only have lawyers been guilty of simply identifying the problem, but so, too, has the press.

This is unfortunate for two reasons. First, as a society, we are denied the honest and rich dialogue of examining the potential solutions for the conflicts that we all face. Second, we are denied the solution.

Clark County is facing a public education crisis. Before the Andre Agassi Charitable Foundation became involved in public education, that was a statement that I often heard, but didn't understand. Now, as the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy enters its fourth year, it is a notion with which I am all too familiar.

Nevada has one of the lowest graduation rates in the country. Nevada ranks 50th among all states in the number of children that attend four-year colleges, and we rank 49th in the number of students who graduate within 150 percent of the scheduled time. We are not sending our kids to college, and the ones who are attending are not graduating within a reasonable period.

Last month, test results revealed that Clark County's failing public schools increased from 18 in 2002-03 to 82 in 2003-04. We are heading in the wrong direction, and we are crashing quickly.

There is a potential solution for this crisis. This fall, each of you will have the opportunity to vote on a measure that is designed to increase the funding for education. The measure will require Nevada to fund education at the national average. Examining 2002 data, Nevada funds education at $6,093 per pupil. The national average is $7,524. We rank 47th.

Let me ask you to examine a couple of things. Looking above, there is a correlation between the ranking of our results and our funding. For all of you who might think that there is no correlation between educational funding and educational results, you need to think again.

Agassi Prep funds a little above the national average. The state provides us $5,269 per student, and then the Andre Agassi Foundation subsidizes the difference. Our goal was to examine what a child's education and results would be if we funded them adequately.

Our middle school students met the adequate yearly progress requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, the only middle school in the neighborhood to do so. We serve children who come from some of the lowest performing schools in the county, and through higher educational standards, which require higher funding, those students are now achieving at or above the national average.

So, we know that we have a crisis, and we know that our funding is inadequate. Still, with all of the complexities that surround this issue, the Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote an editorial that simply dismisses the proposal. The editorial, "Throwing money at education," states two reasons for the ballot measure to be rejected.

First, the editorial claims that it would be difficult to determine what the national average is. Of course, this is simply not true. The editorial's second point is the more interesting and important. It states that the measure shouldn't be supported because there is "no real promise of accountability." In this respect, the editorial is right.

If the public is going to fund education adequately, we have a right to know how that money is going to be spent and what results would determine its success.

At Agassi Prep, to prove we are not merely "throwing money at education," we have a system of accountability that demands additional requirements to the typical system of education in Nevada. We have an 8-hour school day, a longer school year, mandatory school uniforms, a strict code of conduct for both students and educators and required parental involvement. These methods of accountability prove to be working.

Instead of engaging in the dialogue of how results could be measured, and how we can improve education, the Review-Journal simply sits on the sideline and says "no." This is irresponsible.

The press has a responsibility to bring a community together to examine its priorities and discuss them in an honorable way. I hope in the months to come before the election, the Review-Journal will live up to its responsibility and explore this issue fully, rather than simply dismiss it.

To ensure the passage of this measure, and to make the public aware, I hope the teachers union will address these concerns before the November election with a commitment and a plan of exactly how this money should be spent.

I would like to praise the Las Vegas Sun for living up to its responsibilities as a member of the local press by allowing me the opportunity to open a discussion for the entire community and for not being so dismissive of an issue that is of such importance to our state.

archive