School money not really safe from cuts

By Emily Richmond

Saturday, Dec. 8, 2007 | 7:25 a.m.

Superintendents of Nevada's 17 school districts were in an uneasy mood this week as they discussed looming budget woes.

Gov. Jim Gibbons has pledged that K-12 education's core funding will be protected from the budget cuts he is imposing across state government. But even if public schools are spared, projected shortages for some special programs have the school administrators concerned.

Keith Rheault, Nevada's superintendent of public instruction, told the school officials at a meeting Thursday that they might not have enough money to offer retirement credits, which are incentives districts give to teachers who accept hard-to-fill positions in at-risk schools. A teacher can retire up to a year early by working for five years in at-risk schools.

Rheault calculates that the retirement credit fund has just less than $23 million for the current fiscal year. But school districts have already submitted requests totaling more than $27 million.

About 4,200 Clark County teachers received retirement credits last year, at a cost of about $14 �million.

One reason for the greater demand is disagreement over the definition of at-risk schools. The state Education Department defines them as schools with a high percentage of students from low-income families.

But the Nevada State Education Association argues that the definition includes more schools because the law authorizing the retirement incentives included schools that were designated "in need of improvement" after posting at least two consecutive years of low test scores.

Rheault said he asked the Legislature's legal advisers for an opinion and they sided with the teachers union. That meant hundreds of additional teachers qualify.

So now, if requests for retirement credits exceed the money available, the Education Department will have to decide who gets what, Rheault said.

The state is phasing out the retirement credit program after educators concurred it was not very effective. But funds are still needed to satisfy the current obligations, said state Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, D-Carson City.

Even after the retirement credit ends, "the districts are going to have to come up with some other incentives to take its place," Parnell said. "There is still going to be a need for that pot of money."

Also at issue for the superintendents is the fate of new state-funded "empowerment schools." During a legislative hearing in October, Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio suggested delaying the empowerment schools program to save money.

The state has given no official response, but Raggio's remarks were enough to trigger serious concerns among superintendents.

Empowerment schools receive additional per-pupil funding and greater flexibility with daily operations in exchange for greater accountability.

Lawmakers set aside nearly $10 �million this year for new empowerment schools, which are to open at the start of the 2008-09 academic year.

Clark County is required by the new law to have at least 16 empowerment schools by the upcoming academic year, double the number it currently supports through its own general fund.

Clark County Schools Superintendent Walt Rulffes said the district can't afford to open those schools if the state funding is held up. "I would imagine if the funding wasn't in place, the (legislative) expectation would be delayed," Rulffes said.

During the legislative session that ended earlier this year, some lawmakers, including state Sen. Steven Horsford, D-North Las Vegas, argued that an empowerment model was possible without requiring additional funds. Rulffes and other educators disagreed.

Without the promise of extra dollars of per-pupil funding, fewer principals will be interested in taking on the challenge, Rulffes said.