What will work best for Nevada’s schools?

Emily Richmond, Las Vegas Sun

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 | 7:22 a.m.

In the quest to improve Nevada's public schools, legislators have, in a sense, a most fundamental decision to make: whether to give a higher priority to the youngest of schoolchildren, or to high school students on the brink of real-world realities.

That is, in a time of limited education funds, is Nevada better off paying for all-day kindergarten classes or adding more career and technical training programs for teenagers?

The debate is consuming lawmakers in Carson City.

At another time or place, the solution might be simple: Each approach has benefits, so just pay for both. But in 2007 Nevada, under a governor who pledged to not raise taxes, paying for both seems out of the political question.

So the debate is turning into a question of either/or, and the two political parties have chosen sides.

Democrats favor all-day kindergarten, at a cost of $73 million.

Republicans are partial to career and technical education, for the relatively meager sum of $14 million.

Democrats say all-day kindergarten gives children an educational boost, preparing them better to become eager students throughout life. Existing half-day kindergarten, which typically allows for just two hours of instructional time, isn't enough, they say.

Republicans argue that any head-start advantages of full-day kindergarten are lost on students by the third grade. At the same time, many high school students who are at risk of dropping out stay in school because they are captivated by career training.

Democrats and the state's education officials do not accept the premise that all-day kindergarten has a questionable effect.

"I hope they won't draw a line in the sand and pit one program against the other," Clark County Schools Superintendent Walt Rulffes said. "Both programs have merit, and both programs are deserving of funding."

Here is a look at each side of the debate, which will play out in the capital in the coming weeks.