Nevada ranks 26th in average teacher salaries

Friday, June 24, 2005 | 9:44 a.m.

When it comes to average teacher salaries, Nevada ranked 26th in the nation for a second consecutive year, according to a new report released Thursday by the National Education Association.

In its annual rankings and estimates, the nation's largest teachers' union compared per-pupil expenditures, as well as state and federal sources of revenues for public education.

The average salary for a classroom teacher in Nevada last year was $42,254, compared with $46,752 nationally. In Clark County, with starting pay for new teachers hovering at $28,000, an educator with nine years experience and 32 graduate school credits toward a master's degree typically earns $42,245.

For the 2003-04 school year Nevada moved up one spot to 44th place with an average per-pupil expenditure of $6,622. The national average was $8,248.

The 2005 Legislature approved increasing the minimum per-pupil guarantee to $4,486 in 2006 and $4,696 in 2007.

The NEA report also evaluated whether large urban school districts would be better off if states used "weighted student formulas" to determine funding. Using the weighted formula schools would receive extra money for high-need students.

While the use of the "weighted student formula" shows promise in helping some larger school districts there needs to be more research and evaluation of whether the needs of students would be more efficiently or adequately met, the NEA report concludes.

Terry Hickman, president of the Nevada State Education Association, said an interim study approved by the 2005 Legislature will attempt to address some of the same questions.

"What does it take to adequately provide a quality education for every student?" Hickman asked. "With Nevada's large ELL (English Language Learner) population, do we need to adjust our funding formula? We're hoping to have some solid answers for the 2007 (legislative) session."

Walt Rulffes, deputy superintendent of operations for the Clark County School District, said some steps have already been taken to provide extra resources to high-need classrooms even without using a weighted funding formula. Remedial programs are scheduled based on the number of at-risk students and the state also offers retirement credits to teachers who stay in hard-to-fill positions, Rulffes said.

The downside of the weighted funding formula is that it only reorganizes how funds are allocated without improving the bottom line, Rulffes said.

"There would be winners and losers," Rulffes said. "If we gave more up front students with special needs we'd have to take it away from those who don't."