Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterThe stimulus chase
Millions in federal funding for K-12 and higher education is available, but Nevada risks losing it all for both if it won’t boost investment in one
Chris Morris
Wednesday, April 8, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
- Action on cuts waiting until lawmakers say how much (4-6-2009)
- Budget woes raise issues of cost, value of research (4-5-2009)
- Education funding debated at town hall meeting in Henderson (4-4-2009)
- Declining property tax revenue snags School District budget (4-3-2009)
- Higher education system outlines 'doomsday' budget effects (3-25-2009)
- School district: If you must cut the budget, do it our way (3-23-2009)
- Students, decrying budget cuts, rally for after-school programs (3-16-2009)
- Chancellor Rogers enlists campus help in budget plea (3-12-2009)
- Budget might put teachers in game of musical chairs (3-1-2009)
- Fewer students, but same funding (2-24-2009)
Sun Coverage
Nevada’s public schools stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal stimulus money because of a largely overlooked twist in the funding guidelines.
A significant chunk of the stimulus money that would go to K-12 schools is tied to the fate of Nevada’s higher education system.
To qualify for about $325 million in “state stabilization funds” for the K-12 and higher education systems, Nevada must allocate at least as much state money for education as it did in 2006. State lawmakers expect they can meet that requirement for K-12, but not for higher education. That’s why Gov. Jim Gibbons has asked the Obama administration to waive the state funding requirement for higher education.
If the request is denied, the university system is not the only one that will lose out, state and federal officials said.
“If one side or the other doesn’t clear the bar, there’s no money for anybody,” said Jim Wells, deputy superintendent of administrative and fiscal services for the Nevada Education Department. “Everyone’s pretty desperate right now, trying to figure out how to make this work.”
Although Nevada is guaranteed extra federal money for special education programs and students from low-income households under other components of the stimulus plan, the Clark County School District is counting heavily on the big money of the state stabilization funding to help stanch its fiscal bleeding.
The School District has shed $133 million in programs and services, and expects to trim its annual operating budget by $120 million over the next biennium.
Without that stimulus money, the district’s workforce will have to be trimmed even more, said Joyce Haldeman, associate superintendent of community and government relations for the district.
As for Nevada’s best hope, the federal government said states that have experienced “a precipitous decline in financial resources” can apply for waivers. In March Gibbons wrote to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, spelling out Nevada’s dire fiscal straits, and its position as “the number one state in economic distress in the country.”
But at the time of the governor’s letter, the Education Department had not yet finalized the provisions of the waiver. And it turns out meeting those requirements might also be more than Nevada can manage.
To qualify, a state must show that the percentage of its budget that goes to education stays the same for the next two years. Currently K-12 and higher ed account for 53 percent of the state’s budget. Preliminary estimates show education’s share dropping to 50 percent next year. Making up and maintaining the difference, as the waiver would require, could cost “hundreds of millions” over the biennium, Wells said.
And there’s more at risk. Another $5 billion in education grants will be awarded later this year to states that show the most innovation and initiative in using the first-round stimulus money. If Nevada misses out on stabilization funding, its chances of qualifying for second-round grants are slim, Wells said.
The waiver’s requirements are steeper than many educators and state officials were expecting, including Clark County Schools Superintendent Walt Rulffes.
If Nevada were able to guarantee that education’s share of the budget wouldn’t drop for two years, “Why would we need a waiver in the first place?” Rulffes said.
Dan Klaich, the Nevada higher education system’s executive vice chancellor, said he believes many people are unaware of the potential pitfalls related to the stimulus money.
“People seem to think this is just about higher ed, and it’s absolutely not,” Klaich said. “Everything that happens with this decision impacts not just higher education, but our partners in K-12.”
Klaich added that the federal education department’s position — that K-12 and higher ed must sink or swim together — isn’t wrong.
“This is a message Jim Rogers has been shouting from every rooftop since the day he became chancellor,” Klaich said. “The most important thing we can do to improve the quality of higher education in Nevada is to improve the quality of our high school graduates. We have a vested interest in K-12 succeeding.”
Discussion: 72 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- The pull of a drug, a push to the brink
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- Where to watch UFC 106
- Findlay guard Joseph scores 33, talks about UNLV
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- Bishop Gorman takes Sunset Region title in win over Cimarron
- Basic’s magical season continues with trip to state semifinals
- Was there an ulterior motive in parking the stripper-mobile?
- Reid clears major health care hurdle, daunting weeks ahead
Blogs
Culture and Entertainment
UFC 106 walk-in music: Griffin changes his tune, secures win over Ortiz
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (7 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (2 Comments)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (4 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
The Chase at Downtown Cocktail Room
Downtown Cocktail Room | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Lady Gaga album release party at Revolution Lounge
Beatles Revolution Lounge | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Food drive at Christian Audigier
Christian Audigier The Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Above & Beyond at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Is just spending more money the solution to getting better results from education? How much will it costs to get improved education? How will that spending be carried out to result in improved education?
"The waiver's requirements are steeper than many educators and state officials were expecting, including Clark County Schools Superintendent Walt Rulffes."
Remember what Reid said back when the "stimulus" was getting passed.
He is doubt worry. He has it handled.
I guess not.
What exactly does Reid do with all that power?
Not much for Nevada.
"He is doubt worry."
When people can't even construct a proper sentence, I wonder what business they have commenting on education or its funding.
This what happens went Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are in charge of writing our Laws - and after repeated warnings pass an inept law.
Obama's Education department secretary Arne Duncan issues regulations that comply with Harry Reid Law.
Harry Reid promised that he had "handled it."
We still do not have e-verify.
Do we want Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi writing our health care laws?
And YUCCA mountain is still not dead Harry.
I really can't comment on the funding issues - but I do think I have a good idea for use of the extra money. Consider the following:
Thousands of kids in need of remediation sit idle for 10 weeks during the summer.
Hundreds of 9-month buildings sit idle during the summer.
THere are thousands of teachers, who would be happy to work for $22 hr. money, sitting idle during the summer.
All it would take is a relatively small amount of $$$ to bring these interests together for the benefit of both the students who are in need of remediation and the teachers who would like the opportunity to earn more money by working through their vacation.
I dont know if this would be considered "innovative" because it is so obvious. It has actually been run on a small scale in the past, but the budget crunch has all but killed these summer remediation programs. THe stimulus windfall would be, imo, a perfect chance to bring these programs back - even if only temporarily.
So it's Reid and Pelosi's fault that Gibbons is willing to completely gut the higher education system all in the name of "no new taxes"? The federal govt is absolutely right and justified in refusing to help a state that refuses to invest in itself. If Nevada is willing to sacrifice the education of its children and the reputation of its universities, why should the government do anything to help it out?
It's about time Clark County seceded from this piece-of-crap state--stuck in its unending social, educational and cultural stagnation.
"Is just spending more money the solution to getting better results from education? How much will it costs to get improved education? How will that spending be carried out to result in improved education?"
I can tell you right now if teachers are RIF'd, then the education your children will receive will be much less than it was 10-15 years ago. Classrooms will have 45-55 students in them, students will be sharing textbooks (2 kids per book), and teachers will finally throw up their hands, and will look for other jobs in other states. And for those who think they could handle this type of stress, you are welcome to take on the job of teacher-- or should we say "crowd control technician."
California is spending a fortune on schools and ranks at the bottom. Becareful Nevada. This is the start of an expensive system that never has enough. California has almost 10% sales tax, high income tax, and huge property tax bills. Still, they are running in billion dollar deficits. I see the same fate for Nevada. If people with kids went somewhere else, we would be better off. They are a huge tax burden.
Let's see... Why do we need to spend money to fix education? The Libertarians keep blasting their message that we already overspend and shouldn't continue, but let's look at the reality. Classrooms in Nevada are among crowded and have been getting worse as funding hasn't kept pace with growth and inflation. Every year more full time subs are needed to fill positions, because Nevada doesn't offer a competitive salary schedule. Energy costs have continued to rise at a rate exceeding inflation taking an increasingly bigger bite out of the budget every year. Did I mention Growth and inflation, that funding hasn't kept pace with over the last twenty years?
This is gastric bypass surgery on a system already dying, so why do we need the money?
In my earlier comment I meant to say,
This is gastric bypass surgery on a system already dying of starvation.
Isn't it amazing how a few people in Washington DC know how to set the educational system for all 50 states. The very idea that those in DC are better equipped to decide how we all should live is based on the donations the national unions have made to it's leadership.
harry Reid has sold us out in exchange for campaign support from Obama and his master Nancy Pelosi.
This state is seeing business closings and profits gone from everything. Still the master central planners in DC seem to know the rules for New York City and San Fransisco are the same ones needed in rural Nevada.
First, spending more does not improve education because there is no connection between improving the quality of education and actual funding - schools get the same amount of money regardless of quality http://npri.org/publications/the-funding...
Nevada currently spends over $10,000 per student, we have one of the largest debts and highest capital expenditures and we've more than doubled inflation adjusted per pupil spending since 1960 http://www.npri.org/docLib/20090218_Fast...
Want more teachers? Drop teacher certification requirements which have the effect of keeping qualified minorities out of the teaching profession: http://npri.org/blog/minorities-need-not...
And in regards to teacher pay, Nevada pays its teachers quite well: http://npri.org/blog/how-about-them-appl...
Funding for higher education has grown at a rate that is three times faster than inflation http://npri.org/docLib/20090327_Fast_Fac...
Lets not forget that UNLV and UNR are not only not underfunded but are some of the biggest spending universities in the country: http://npri.org/docLib/20090306_Fast_Fac...
Which is sad considering they still can't graduate half their students: http://npri.org/docLib/20090310_gradrank...
I am confused?
If Obama Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want to give Nevada 100s of millions of dollar then why all the stupid rules.
This is a stimulus package so by definition we should not not have complex rules for a temporary, targeted, immediate stimulus.
Harry just give us the damm money that you promised.
Harry said that it was handled!!!!
Harry this is our money that we want back ASAP
Hey, Patrick;
What a load of libertarian swill.
Excuse me, but I've read all your crap before, all your "links", it's all slanted slop.
You have ZERO practical experience, and it shows in ALL of your postings. Get out there and get one of these teaching jobs, Patrick, and then report back to us.
Further, Nevada is the most under-educated state in these here parts for some very obvious reasons; Well, obvious to those who have an ounce of common sense and practical life experience.
Well if we are undereducated then we are still doing pretty well with the 7th highest income per capita and the 14th lowest poverty rate.
Mind proving that my research is slanted or slop? I've got all the sources and you can double check it all. I've even pulled stuff from left-of-center think tanks like the Brookings Institution (teacher certifications) and The Education Trust (Higher Ed spending and graduation rates).
Its going to take more than hot air to make a solid point, please try again.
The npri guys need to leave statistics to the statisticians.
You cannot compare education spending at the state level between states. Most states fund education at the county or district level, so state averages are meaningless. Same goes for capital expenses.
UNLV overfunded? Your own web site has UNLV ranked 203rd. Below such exciting schools as Northern Arizona and Western New Mexico!
Lastly, UNLV's mean age of an undergraduate is 27 on the date of their graduation, and its mean time to graduation is more than 6 years. Which means UNLV's students DO graduate, but the half or so start in their 20s, and are on the 8 to 10 year plan. We should respect those students who, with families to support, still go back to college part-time to better themselves, not accuse UNLV of having a bad graduation rate!
And, while I believe in merit based pay for teachers, I also believe in the free market: if we have a teacher shortage, the way to resolve it is to increase wages. That's econ 101. Encourage the best and brightest to become teachers by paying them a wage that attracts them!
oh, i forgot the most important statistic reported this week:
Unemployment rate, high school dropouts: 14%
Unemployment rate, high school grads: 9%
Unemployment rate, college grads, 4%
WASHINGTON, Aug. 20, 2003- Taxpayers are spending $7.4 billion a year to educate illegal alien children, finds a new analysis of Census Bureau data from the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Ethically, is it moral to deny services to people when they are here illegally?
That's enough money to put a computer on the desk of every junior high school student in America.
You want to pay lower taxes and have better education then send the illegals back with there kids. It really is that simple.
we are 18th in personal income per capita, not 7th
the growth rate in nevada personal income is ranked 48th
in 1980, we were about 120% of the national average
today, we are 102%
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional...
Excellent points Patrick R Gibbons!
The results speak for themselves, the current public educational process is a failed one.
Continued taxpayer support of this process (53% of State budget!) is a waste of resources which must be stopped!
Innovation must come from utilizing currently available viable techologies with the goal of transferring the public educational services offered in the expensive classroom environment to the responsible home environment and/or allow the private sector (which spends less per child than the public sector) compete for parent's educational dollars.
"We cannot solve today's problems with the same level of thinking that created them". -- A. Einstein.
Bill,
1) Yes you can compare state per pupil spending across states. Yes each state reports different expenditures in their "per pupil" calculation but the US Department of Education and USB did a large project equalizing what each state reported and collected it into one big report http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/06f33...
2) Instructional spending per pupil at UNLV ranked 195th out of 506 public colleges. Instructional spending focuses more on what students learn rather than expenditures on research related and Olympic size swimming pools. That is above the national average. Graduation rates are well below the national average
3) Part time students DO NOT count in 6 year graduation rates. Only first time full time students.
4)If we have a teacher shortage problem, why have all these complicated and expensive requirements? Reality - certification creates a shortage on purpose
5) Increasing teacher pay would increase quality if education functioned like a normal market. Research by Ballou and Podgursky found that increasing teacher pay did not result in better teachers because we do not have a way to identify good teachers. We also have a pay system that rewards mediocrity not merit - so how do you attract high quality individuals if they have to make less than someone who is half as good as they are?
6) Quick facts on Nevada: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/...
7) Personal income per capita is 7th highest; personal income per household is 17th highest. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163... they cite federal sources, including the BEA.
8) Since the mid 70s personal income in Nevada has increased more than 30 percent and that is even after adjusting for inflation. We've become wealthier, not poorer.
Patrick has really learned that the best way to confuse anyone is to cite statistics.
"Nevada currently spends over $10,000 per student, we have one of the largest debts and highest capital expenditures and we've more than doubled inflation adjusted per pupil spending since 1960 http://www.npri.org/docLib/20090218_Fast...
Doh... We've had to build buildings to house the students that have arrived due to growth, and that costs money and becomes debt. Including these expenditures to compare us with how much others spend that don't have the construction costs hides the true amount we actually are spending on INSTRUCTION.
Most of you other links are merely your own op-ed opinion pieces with out any real meat. Just Your own stand.
The bottom line is we haven't been inventing in an education system that will prepare our students to compete in the 21st Century.
We have no way of gauging the efficacy of instruction, much less of teachers. We also have no way to quantify the superiority of instruction by one teacher over another. In other words, the notion of paying a teacher an approriate salary is well beyond our reach. Nobody knows how much better the good teachers are. Nobody knows how much they are worth.
All we know is that those people raising the next generation are certified, responsible and way underpaid. Pay them a reasonable salary ($100,000/yr.), and watch the quality improve. Or don't and continue stumbling over the Nance posts and think you're reading geniuses.
Aireware,
All true until you equate certified to quality. Some teachers are going to be underpaid and some will be overpaid...as the research from the Brookings Institution shows, teacher certification is not correlated with teacher effectiveness: http://npri.org/blog/minorities-need-not...
Since we have no way to identify who is effective and no way to reward them, increasing pay won't do a bit of good. The reason why we don't have the ability to identify quality teachers is because the Nevada legislature has outlawed it.
Lvmach,
It is very reasonable to assume our fast growth is the cause for much of our extra spending, but Arizona the second fastest growing state in the country behind Nevada spends $700 per pupil less on capital outlays. Arizona's debt per pupil is also just 40% of Nevada's debt per pupil. Our fast growth isn't the problem, it is how we spend the money and a lack of accountability on how it is spent.
Also, this whole 21st century skills is rhetorical nonsense, we aren't doing anything different - we've got an education system ground in the 19th century. Besides, if 21st century skills are so great, then I'd say its never too early to start teaching kids 22nd century skills.
Also, if you haven't read my latest report on education reform: http://npri.org/docLib/20090318_Failure_...
Findings...
African-American students in Florida improved their reading achievement from third worst in the nation to sixth best.
Hispanic students in Florida outscore the statewide average of all students in 15 states, including Nevada.
The reading achievement gap between whites and underserved minorities has drastically decreased.
The achievement gap between middle- and upper-income students and low-income students has also diminished.
PRG,
Nobody ever equated certification with quality. Name one person qualified to evaluate a teacher's contributions and justify the evaluation with data. It's not the fault of legislators that nobody knows how to evaluate a teacher's skills. Saying that it is outlawed is going beyond the facts. Why would you want to do that? They are simply incapable of conceiving of a scheme whereby an accurate system of measuring the efficacy of the work of a teacher can be codified. Their inability has absolutely nothing to do with law. Why would you want to make such stuff up? And spread it?
When New York offered $120,000 for the annual salary of teachers in a charter school, do you think they got good teachers? Actually, they did. See? Money works. Even where nobody knows how to evaluate the outcomes, money works.
Harley,
Your Einstein quote is getting old. Besides, the education difficulties experienced by our nation can be changed only by the people who try to change it, not by the ET's you suppose would give of their time to implement your single computer program suggestion that, in your mind, would meet all the learning needs of all the children. Who else do you find qualified to adjust our instructional industries to meet the needs of the next generations? Do you really think that the people reconciling the shortages in our education outcomes are the same ones that put us into this quagmire?
Your suggestion that families have to pay for the education of their kids if the kids can't utilize the one single program that you say will meet every learning need of every single child is way beyond reason. What's the matter with you? Why do you want to throw all the teachers out, close the schools and make kids try to get what school gives them from a computer? You have no idea of what you're proposing. It can't work. People aren't made this way. You are an idiot.
Harley,
Your run-on sentence "The results speak for themselves, the current public educational process is a failed one." is indicative of the lack of cranial function of a Harley, not of a society.
Nevada's constitution spells out clear enough for even legislators that we have the responsibility to educate our youth. Your suggestion that we stop doing so is absolutely typical of what appears to be the remnant of thought processes of yours.
A waste of resources occurs when people do knee-jerk stuff as you suggest...stop educating our children...fire all the teachers...leave education to one computer program...force parents to pay sophists whatever they ask...waste children's opportunities to better themselves.
Patrick,
1. I know you'll never admit your errors, but the report you cite itself says:
"However, because the content of state aid programs greatly varies among the states, this information may not be comparable when making comparisons between school systems in different states."
You have to understand the statistics behind these documents to make sense of them.
2. The Tax Foundation study is "AFTER TAX" personal income per capita. We are 18th in nominal personal income per capita, but since we are 49th in tax burden on our citizens, we pop up near the top in AFTER TAX personal income. Please read the study.
3. The schools below UNLV in the funding study are mostly non-doctoral schools, classified in a different category than UNLV. Very difficult on this list to find a school below UNLV that has the range of programs that UNLV has. For example, the Cal States are below in instructional spending, but they have no doctoral programs, and limited master's programs. Let's find a study of undergraduate costs and then compare campus to campus.
4. You claim that increasing teacher pay will not result in better teachers because "we do not have a way to identify good teachers", then you claim we reward mediocrity. How can we know that if we cannot identify good teachers? And, if we can identify good teachers, then pay increases will work. So which is it?
Approve vouchers and let schools compete for students. Give every parent the right to chose where to enroll their student and lets end the monopolistic control of education and save money at the same time.
Patrick, could you please clarify what you mean by:
"Want more teachers? Drop teacher certification requirements which have the effect of keeping qualified minorities out of the teaching profession"
If those minorities in question are qualified, why do we need to drop teacher certification requirements?
I personally tend to think that our children tend to learn better from better teachers (seems somewhat logical to me). If we want to increase student success, we should ask for higher teacher certification requirements not lower ones.
Greg,
Because certification does not mean quality. See the Brookings Institution report I cited. Another report by Paul Peterson of Hoover and Harvard finds that states with real alternative pathways to teacher certification increase the number of minority teachers. This may suggest that the teacher certification process keeps minorities out.
Teacher certification does not mean teachers are better. It just means they jumped through approved hoops.
Patrick, Patrick, Patrick. Someday, you will look back on all this and say, "what a naive pup I was."
Bill,
Of course I admit errors, please share them with me. Specifically, identify the page you found that on.
1) The report, as I stated, attempts to even out the difficult of "self reported" spending data. This makes using this comparison more accurate than others. However, if your objection is valid and we can't compare per pupil spending state by state, then why do we do it so much?
2) This does not appear to be true, at least I cannot find your explanation in that paper. Nevada's tax collection per capita ranks 25th. Estimated taxes paid by residents is 44th. Our income per capita is 7th. Take resident taxes compared to high personal income and you have a low residential tax burden. That is what the report examined. The income per capita reported does not appear to be after tax income. In fact, do the math, Nevada's $49k income per capita multiplied by the over 6.6 percent tax burden = $3200, the same total tax as mentioned in this report.
3) Yes doctoral granting universities spend, on average more money than UNLV, but UNLV is hardly a premier doctoral granting university. I believe it is Tier 4. Besides, we probably should focus less on research and graduating PhD's and more on educating and graduating BAs. (Don't forget to look at UNR which ranks 25th in spending but still can't graduate half its students). If you still want a comparison of UNLV to its piers visit: http://www.collegeresults.org/ the results are still disappointing.
4) Yes, this is simple. We pay teachers based on seniority. There is no reward for extra effort, there is no reward for high quality and there is no punishment for poor teaching. Teachers in Nevada face no real evaluation and can acquire tenure after just 1 year. This means a teacher can earn half as much as another even though the quality of their output is identical. How many hard working teachers are going to be teachers just out of the kindness of their heart? All this protection means we reward mediocrity. By reward, I mean incentivize, I did not mean for you to take it literally.
To alleviate this problem we need merit pay, or at least some form of bonus based on merit -- the quality of the teacher and their ability to educate students.
Airweare, your continued personal attacks reveal the same level of thinking that is seen by those acerbating failures with taxpayer bailout mandates. Absent of viable solutions to the topics you comment upon reveals your true (lack of) genius, not to mention your inability to simply ignore those 'idiots' like Harley.
LOL
Your constant banter which supports the State pimping of prostitutes as well as dealing marijuana as a means of providing tax revenues is another trait of your immoral genius.
LOL
"Nevada's constitution spells out clear enough for even legislators that we have the responsibility to educate our youth." --airweare
LMAO
Article 11 section 2, "Legislators are shall provide for a uniform system of common schools, by which A SCHOOL shall be established and maintained in EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT at least six month in every year".
BTW: Nevada has eighteen school districts. Hardly a Constitutional responsibility to educating any youth.
Parents are ultimately responsible for their children's education, not the legislature, educators or the property owning public.
One can't continue to increase homeowner's property taxes +18.5% annually while their property values are decreasing +38.7% annually and expect property owners to be a continued viable source of revenue to ANY entity's funding needs. Not to mention the growing number of unemployed, foreclosures and bankruptcies. Something the "same level of thinking" politicians and the geniuses like your self created and should be held accountable for.
"We cannot solve today's problems with the same level of thinking that created them". -- A. Einstein.
Gmag, are you willing to disclose your profession and enlighten us with your research, practical experience and overwhelming wisdom? If you aren't at least willing to do that, could you at least try and provide some facts in this debate?
"The definition of income used in this study is
different from the one used in previous Tax
Foundation state-local burden estimates. It is a
hybrid between the Bureau of Economic
Analysis's calculation of "personal income" and
the income concept used by the Congressional
Budget Office in its annual "Effective Federal
Tax Rates" study.
The income measure used here adds to
personal income the following: capital gains
realizations, pension and life insurance distributions,
corporate income taxes paid, and taxes
on production and imports less subsidies. It
subtracts from personal income the non-fungible
portion of Medicare and Medicaid, as
well as the estimated Medicare benefits that are
provided via supplementary contributions (the
same for veterans' life insurance). This measure
also subtracts the initial contributions to pension
income and life insurance from employers,
as well as the annual investment income of life
insurance carriers and pensions (much of
which is imputed by BEA) that is included in
personal income. Note that some small fraction
of income is still double-counted over a lifetime,
most notably the contributions of
individual employees to pension and life insurance
funds. Also, there is a timing problem
with respect to the corporate income taxes paid
that is included in the income concept here
and the fact that capital gains realizations are
used as opposed to retained earnings (accrued
capital gains). In Tax Freedom Day, we used
the latter; but in this paper, due to the fact that
there are systematic movements across geographies
over life-cycles (e.g. Arizona, Florida,
etc.) and the fact that we are only looking at
state and local taxes where the corporate income
tax is relatively minor compared to the
federal government, we use capital gains realizations."
If this is what you are talking about, this would only have a major effect on federal, not state taxes paid. This methodology, and many others in this paper, skews results. Using a more straight approach would mean Nevada's tax burden is higher. In the end though, we're arguing over a minor detail. If we use 18th highest, that isn't bad either, especially considering our low college graduate levels. My point still stands. It would be a completely different story if we were much lower than that, but that is above the median.
PS Bill,
UNLV:
Spending rank 195th
Grad rank 327th.
Doctoral graning research university or not, it spends above the national median and graduates well below it. How do you explain that away?
I read through all these posts and finally Harley points it out.
Parents are ultimately responsible for the education of their children. Where are the parents?
To the article, "higher education" is not for everyone. Unless I'm wrong, k-12 is mandatory, beyond is not. I don't believe the state should be teased with school stimulus only if the state kicks in for higher education.
Patrick,
1. There is a section in the report called "limitations of the data." Why do we compare state to state? Because people want to do something, and good statistics is hard. Nevada spends half per student what New York spends. But Nevada spends equally per student in every school district on operating. New York does not. Nevada does not spend equally per student per county on capital. The state builds schools in Lincoln and White Pine Counties, for example, but not in Clark. Do the higher spending districts in New York do better, worse, or the same than the lower spending districts? That's a valid statistical question. Nevada v. New York lumped together is not.
2. The BEA puts Nevada per capita personal income at $40,353, rank 18th, see link above for the March 29, 2009 report (less than two weeks old). The Tax Foundation is adjusting for taxes, and a couple other things, as you point out. With the second lowest tax burden in America, according to the Tax Foundation, it moves us up.
3. Again, UNLV has a typical urban university population, average time to graduation exceeds 6 years, average rate at which students transfer higher than normal. It is always going to look bad in the graduation statistics.
I do agree with you on one point. UNLV needs to get undergrad education right before it.
4. Again, I favor merit pay, but you have said two things:
"To alleviate this problem we need merit pay, or at least some form of bonus based on merit -- the quality of the teacher and their ability to educate students."
and
"...increasing teacher pay did not result in better teachers because we do not have a way to identify good teachers."
Which seem to me to remain in conflict.
1) You should know all data is limited in some form or fashion. We are always limited by the availability of data. The question is what is the best available data and the best way to use it. That source happens to be the best cross state comparison data for per pupil spending currently available. Unlike other sources, it does more than just request states self-disclose expenditures (as I've found out, states often disclose different things, and exclude some expenditures entirely. This dataset does the best job out of other per pupil spending comparisons in attempting to rectify those differences between states.
Just because New York City spends more than Rome New York which spends more than Bobtown New York which happens to be below the average of New York Public schools does not mean we CANT compare the average total spending in New York to the average total spending in Nevada. We aren't comparing New York City spending to spending in Pahrump, NV...if I was I think you might have a legitimate case.
At anyrate, I will have a comparison of per pupil spending across counties WITHIN Nevada - paper forthcoming, you might be surprised by the results.
2)It adds in some income taken for taxes and takes out others (so it isn't "after tax income...which would be weird being higher than the BEA's before tax income), and using the BEA figure would mean Nevada's tax burden increases, but that is beside the point. Even if we accept the BEA stat, and I'm fine with it my original point stands. 18th highest income per capita and 14th lowest poverty rate, that is pretty good for a lack of college graduates don't you think?
3)Graduation rates are calculated the same all over the country. ONLY, First year, first time, full time students are calculated in the cohort. There are plenty of excuses across the country for poor graduation rates, none of them are any good.
4)I can see how you could be tripped up. Nevada needs to test students and use the data to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers...this is how merit pay is done, I thought such specifics weren't necessary. Currently Nevada does not allow teachers to be evaluated based on what their students actually learn.
Teacher pay raises, and other bonuses (like extra pay for advanced degrees) are not tied to how well a teacher actually can teach. Hence, we provide no reward for excellence.
I hope that clarifies things.
PS, per pupil spending in Nevada ranges from $8,000 to $35,000 ;P
...depending on whether or not they exclude a couple hundred million in bonding or not, that is....
Bill,
Do you agree that SB 2, given all your objections to date on per pupil spending data, is unnecessary, mistaken, or even misguided? If you are unaware, SB2 requires Nevada to increase current per pupil expenditures to the national average - averaged as collected by the US Department of Education.
UNLV and its peers according to the Education Trust http://www.collegeresults.org/search1b.a...
peer institutions are based on a host of factors spit out by their complicated formula that takes into account everything from location, to spending, to student body, to actual results - peer ranking not by the egos of research professors and administrators
Sanddunes is right,
Higher education is one of the more perverse wealth transfers in our country. We take money from everyone, but the poor benefit the least while the wealthy have their education, and subsequently better lifestyle, subsidized by everyone else.
This is pretty bad in Nevada because funding has grown three times faster than the annual growth rate in inflation while graduation rates remain horrible across the state. Very few are benefiting and we really are robbing the poor to pay the PhD.
One more thing, awhile back I conducted a multivariate regression analysis on the Ed Trust database on things related to graduation rates including, spending, demographics, and SAT scores.
Minority students were positively correlated with graduation rates, there was no statistical relationship with spending, but there was a very strong positive relationship with SAT scores.
There was also a strong negative relationship with the number of part-time students which I found interesting considering part time students do not effect graduation rates. This suggests something about schools which accept a large number of part time students - perhaps that these are not serious schools offering a serious education or that these schools just look at students as sources of funds not as consumers seeking an education.
1. We need to give you some better statistical training. Your variation number for Nevada is because you merge the capital and non-capital dollars. Lets sit down sometime and I'll explain the meaning of variation and its effects on statistical analysis to you. Suppose growth stops in Las Vegas. Merged capital and non-capital spending numbers would drop dramatically. If test scores rise (as I think they would) would that be a valid statistical test that lower spending raises scores? Of course not. What the Census Bureau is saying by warning about not making cross state generalizations is exactly that. The data are not precise enough to separate out the effects on variation of a number of factors. You cannot know if what you are seeing is really between groups variation, or if substantial within groups variation is being masked.
2. No question that a requirement to raise per pupil spending to any "average" is statistically silly.
3. If pay = test scores, teaching = making sure they can answer the test questions. Find me any study that says the skills students really need (analytical ability, team work, communication) can be measured by a standardized test. Learning is not measured by an SAT.
4. The answer to the paying for higher ed question is problematic in Nevada. We have the perverse system that takes the tuition money and puts it in the state general fund. So Nevada has exceptionally low out of state fees because the NSHE has no reason to raise them -- it doesn't get the money! What most states have done is to raise the in state and out of state tuitions considerably, and simultaneously create a substantial need based scholarship system. That increases revenue, makes those that can pay the cost pay the cost, and actually raises participation by lower income groups. But the Regents have rejected the idea several times because they wouldn't get the money!
5. Again, a regression of the graduation rates is biased by the data. Start at CSN and you don't count. Switch from full time to part time, you count. Transfer to BYU and graduate on time, you count as NOT having graduated from UNLV, and don't count as having graduated from BYU. Fewer than 2/3 UNLV students count.
Part-time students do affect graduation rates. All you have to do is to be full-time your first semester, and you count forever regardless of changes to your status. Again, variation which cannot be accounted for in the data which are aggregated at too high a level.
Bill I think you've got more excuses than you have condescending attitude.
1) I've already shown that your excuse on capital expenses for Nevada is overblown. Arizona has considerably lower cost and has been right behind Nevada in growth. Your excuse for state-to-state comparison is weak at best, even with the limitations. The CBS has current per pupil spending, which is in classroom expenditures and they have total expenditures which covers, this allows for a classroom to classroom comparison - the best we have available. That one, in my opinion is more troublesome that comparing total spending which you seem to have more objection too. We can also compare total spending per pupil which is also important.
If you can't compare state spending on education because of the limitations you've given (and all data has limitations, you don't seem to want to admit that) then we can't study the broad effects of per pupil spending. If we can't know what will happen, why bother increasing spending? Lets focus our efforts on education reform we know works instead of spending money when we have no idea what it will do.
If your answer is to spend money and see what happens we already know that answer for Nevada only. The answer is largely nothing.
Now if you want to give me a lesson I'll be happy to take it, but don't get mad when I show you the research on per pupil spending from academics far greater than you or I combined.
2) Glad to hear, but you still want to increase per pupil spending even though we have no real way of knowing its effects?
3)Really? A test can't measure what you've learned? How about that. Why the heck did I take all those tests in school? I guess we shouldn't bother evaluating anyone, just let them do their job and hope they do the best they can...
4)Most tuition increases go toward building Olympic size swimming pools to attract more students and then to research projects to attract big time professors. Very little actually goes to the classroom. See the Delta Cost Project.
5)Yes, there is always a limitation but once again you blow them out of proportion. You seem to be the type of statisticion who would sit on his hands and do nothing awaiting perfection and that is scientific nonsense
Here is the GR info:
The GRS graduation rates displayed on College Results Online are based on the percentage of first-time, full-time, bachelors or equivalent degree-seeking freshmen who earn a bachelors or equivalent degree from the institution where they originally enrolled. Undergraduates who begin as part-time or non bachelors degree-seeking students, or who transfer into the institution from elsewhere in higher education, are not included in the GRS cohort. Their success or failure to earn a degree does not influence the GRS graduation rates in College Results Online in any way.
In addition to limiting the GRS cohort to those students described above, institutions are also allowed to exclude from their calculations any students who fail to earn a degree for the following reasons:
Left school to serve in the armed forces.
Left school to serve with a foreign aid service of the federal government.
Left school to serve on an official church mission.
Died or became permanently disabled.
Only students who transfer out of a university, drop out, or fail out, harm the universities graduation rate. This is pretty darn fair. Btw amazingly many colleges graduate more than half their students - some 70, 80, 90%
On Graduation rates,
I'll repeat it again Bill
ONLY FIRST TIME, FULL TIME, DEGREE SEEKING STUDENTS are counted in the cohort.
If you transfer to another institution you count against your original institution. If you transfer to another institution and graduate You DO NOT count for that institution.
If you start part time and switch to full time, you do not count. If you start full time and switch to part time you will count.
The problem is, I bet so few students do this. It hardly biases the data. You are a bit nitpicky.
From USCB: "Users should be able to make valid comparisons of this detail when examining school systems within a given state.
However, because the content of state aid programs greatly varies among the states, this information may not be comparable
when making comparisons between school systems in different states. For example, state monies for special education and
compensatory education may be in specific categorical aid programs in one state but be part of general formula assistance in
another state."
The problem, Bill, is not in comparing TOTAL spending between states, but in comparing specific spending items between states - like special education expenses.
This is what they are talking about: elementary-secondary finances report state revenue according to the following program categories: general formula assistance, compensatory and basic skills, special education, staff improvement, vocational, capital outlay/debt service, bilingual education, transportation, and school lunch.
-Comparing some of these can be problematic.
In the end USCB makes the per pupil comparison noting that they've done their best to smooth out the bumps.
Of the last 12 comments, 11 were by a single author.
A single author who, under the guise of a pseudonym, refused to acknowledge his identity a few months ago. A single author who would regularly cite cherrypicked statistics as "evidence" of his words, and would link to an organization, NPRI, which EMPLOYED him.
What's the sound of one hand clapping? Ask Patrick.
Harley,
Your comments make no sense. There is no relationship between my comments and bank failures or their bailouts. As a lifetime teacher, my perspective is rich in understanding of the system from within. I actually took the time in my life to teach the next generations their basic skills in reading, writing and math. This work is important for many reasons which you dismiss. First of all, most people are capable of learning language skills. You, however, are the exception. Your frequent misspellings and botched grammar indicate a weakness in language and thinking. Secondly, you don't write in sentences, but rather prefer to cobble together a mess of run-ons, fragments and non-sequiturs in your senseless posts in desperate attacks to defend you ignorance.
Actually, the states are responsible for teaching the children who live there. You may quote the constitution and argue with the interpretation, but the truth is that states are held responsible financially for the instruction of its youth. Now, Harley, this may be tough to swallow, but your decision to ignore the truth in this one instance is emblematic of your dismissive attitude.
As a teacher and professor, I was involved in guiding and directing the minds of youth and adults in their education. I never was responsible for creating the situation as you accuse me of being. What is wrong with your brain that you think the two things are synonymous?
You criticize the bailouts and then criticize the banks for failing. You propose the wholesale firing of millions of teachers and then complain about people losing their homes and going into bankruptcy. You blame the teachers who are doing their level best and say that parents are ultimately responsible for the education of the children when you know that this is clearly not the case. Individuals are absolutely responsible for their education. If anyone else is ultimately responsible for our success or failure, don't tell me about it. It's a figment of your silly imagination.
And now Ksand will reveal his secret identity?
Airw,
If states are responsible for educating our kids why does the state complain so much about not enough parental involvement?
I think there are plenty of people who just find excuses for the failure of their well-intentioned objections.
Kevin Sandoval, Patrick.
And no, I'm not employed by a radical "think tank," nor am I paid to promote my organization on newspaper websites.
I think that's the key distinction between us.
Why, again, did you consistently refuse to admit that you posted under username "KDR81?"
Mr. Gibbons,
Parental involvement in education is the key to success. When parents help their children by reading to them, assisting in studies, doing math together, etc., the students are known to do better. Kids like encouragement, especially from Mom and Dad.
As a former teacher and professor, I know that the missing element in many failing situations is the absent parent. State government officials, together with superintendents and principals, often charge that the missing parent is the reason for failure within the system. It is often quite true that a child will do much better when he or she has the engaged support of both a Mom and a Dad.
In America, each state has the constitutionally mandated responsibility for educating the children of that state. It doesn't seem like a big news item to me, having begun my teaching career over fifty years ago. The reasons for failures of the system to provide for the optimum instruction in many cases are never an intentional thing; most often, needs are not met because of budget restrictions, personnel reductions or difficulty with discipline or attitude of an individual student. Most teachers and school systems that I have been affiliated with over the course of my lengthy career were quite dedicated to doing the very best possible job of providing for the learning needs of their purview.
To revisit your question, I think the state's frequent comment to the effect that parental involvement is lacking suggests two things: the scores on standardized exams indicate a lower than expected mark; and, the school wants more active participation by the parents to assist in raising the score. A low score is indicative of either a poor student, bad teaching or lack of parental involvement. It's easier to blame the flagging parent than to own up to lousy teaching if you're the district. You'd never blame the kid, would you?
Patrick,
I know you know better than this because we have discussed it in the past. In the future, please do not include statements like:
"Higher education is one of the more perverse wealth transfers in our country. We take money from everyone, but the poor benefit the least while the wealthy have their education, and subsequently better lifestyle, subsidized by everyone else."
and negative and shocking comments like: "Very few are benefiting and we really are robbing the poor to pay the PhD."
I do have a Ph.D. and I work my ass off to get students certified as nurses, radiologists, and so forth. Am I catering to the elite? Absolutely not, an overwhelming % of my students are first generations and work two part-time jobs to pay for their education. Hence, I do take personal offense to your negative comments.
I whole heartedly disagree with your opinion on the above as I do believe in a public system of higher ed even for UNLV and UNR. But that's ok we can disagree. I just hope that in the future you will remember not to lump 4-year and community colleges with UNLV and UNR. 4-year and community colleges are a big chunk of higher ed in Nevada and they do not cater to the rich. I hope you will remember this in the future.
Hoping for some clarifications from you.
Patrick,
Please take the time to read carefully.
1. I have never said I'm for increased funding. Unlike you, I have not made any agenda public. In fact, I favor making the CCSD and UNLV earn more funding by becoming better stewards of the funds they already have.
My point is that folks with philosophies shouldn't distort statistics to "prove" their philosophy. Its like the folks who used to try to prove the existence of God mathematically. Faith does not require proof. Bad "proof" is the hallmark of weak faith.
2. You wrote: The problem, Bill, is not in comparing TOTAL spending between states, but in comparing specific spending items between states - like special education expenses.
Wrong. Please re-read the data limitations. They state clearly what I said, not how you interpret them.
You also wrote: The problem is, I bet so few students do this. It hardly biases the data. You are a bit nitpicky.
"I bet" is your statistical proof? Please get some data to back up your claim.
Bumps? Suppose that the correlation within New York between funding and SAT scores is 99%, and the correlation in Utah between funding and SAT scores is 99%. (Better funded districts have higher SAT scores). Suppose also that New York spends twice as much as Utah per student on average, and the two states have identical average SAT scores. Your database would say "look Utah spends half as much and gets the same result. Spending levels don't matter." But that's not what the within state data would say. Statisticians know better than to compare a couple means as evidence. The correct response is that we lack the data to know what difference funding makes.
3. There are schools that have 70 and 80 percent graduation rates. None of them is an open enrollment urban university with a majority of its students first in family college attendees. (And yes, UNLV is open enrollment. When the Regents raised the GPA to 3.0, they also increased the number of "Alternative Admits" so that UNLV could actually increase the number of students between 2.5 and 3.0.)
What matters is how many of UNLV's students actually graduate, not how long it takes them, or how they fit into a bad federal statistic. Get that number, and then we'll talk.
Greg,
"I do have a Ph.D. and I work my ass off to get students certified as nurses, radiologists, and so forth. Am I catering to the elite? Absolutely not, an overwhelming % of my students are first generations and work two part-time jobs to pay for their education. Hence, I do take personal offense to your negative comments. "
People getting these degrees are going to be better off than many of their peers who do not get these degrees. So yes, we are still transfering money from the poor to the wealthy. The poor get very little benefit from higher education compared to the middle and upper class.
1) You said you believed increased funds to K-12 education would improve education
2)Wrong, they state what I said. The limitations are in comparing things like special education and lunch programs since they are not always separated out. They also say they may miss some programs which can limit the information.
This limitation is solved by comparing TOTAL SPENDING, which you object to because of differences in the population growth rates in states. The way to solve this is to examine states which grow fast with states that grow fast.
In the end states spend billions on education, anything they miss is in the millions and not likely to influence per pupil spending all that much. Basically you'd have us sit on our thumbs and do nothing over peanuts.
3)So are you suggesting ONLY looking at in state comparisons for per pupil spending. Pacific Research Institute just did one for California with districts spending an average of $10,000 to $18,000 per student - they found that there was no correlation between spending and achievement between districts in California. So yes, we have the data to do instate comparisons and between state comparisons. I think you just don't want any comparisons done.
I bet I'll find the same result for Nevada and I also bet you'll complain that it is unfair to do an instate comparison because funding is different for each county and some counties can't take advantage of economies of scale.
4) Thanks for admitting one of the problems. Universities with low graduation rates are accepting students they know stand little chance of graduating.
Also if you look at graduation rates you'll notice that there is a big jump between 4th year and 5th but a very very small jump between 5th and 6th. No one really goes beyond that and for good reason. After 6 years of full time schooling you stand very little chance of graduating if you haven't already.
Yes Patrick "People getting these degrees are going to be better off than many of their peers who do not get these degrees."
And rocket scientists are going to be better off than McDonald's employees with a high school diploma.
Is this normal? Of course it is.
I thought your argument would have more substance than just mundane platitudes.
It is as simple as that...I'm glad you agree. Maybe it is mundate but at least its grounded in reality. Higher education benefits the wealthy much more than the poor.
It is certainly a more plausible reality than us all thinking that all the poor kids will go to college and become rocket scientists.
Now do you want to get those poor kids a good chance at making a better life? Start by encouraging low-achieving students to go to community college or trade school to learn a skill. Then try doing a serious overhaul of K-12 education so future kids are actually prepared for college.
Until then, we are literally robbing the poor to pay the PhD.
Patrick:
1. you wrote: You said you believed increased funds to K-12 education would improve education
Show me where I did that or admit false statement and delete the post.
2. you wrote: This limitation is solved by comparing TOTAL SPENDING, which you object to because of differences in the population growth rates in states.
Where did I say that? I did not. Either post an admission of your false statement or delete the post.
3. The California study might be interesting, but they would need to explain why, in a state with a mean spending of $8,486 per pupil, they only used the upper right hand tail ($10,000 to $18,000). Why not use the low income districts? Don't know if the study is valid, but have trouble seeing how using a non-random portion of the distribution meets the most basic requirements for a good study.
4. UNLV's mean time to an undergraduate degree is 5.3 years, and its median time is 5.0 years. That means that 50% of UNLV students who get a degree take more than 5 years! How does that fact compare to your statement that: "After 6 years of full time schooling you stand very little chance of graduating if you haven't already."
1) You said: "Suppose growth stops in Las Vegas. Merged capital and non-capital spending numbers would drop dramatically. If test scores rise (as I think they would)" What does this mean, it means increasing per pupil spending by merging capital costs into current spending. You stated that you believed test scores would rise. Thus increasing per pupil spending leads to increased test scores...at least for Nevada.
2)So you don't find looking at total per pupil spending to be a bad thing? If so, why did you object to it initially and why did you then go on about capital costs? As I've tried to explain to you there are 2 forms of per pupil spending. Current and Total. You object to both, for no good reason at all.
3) Because what is reported to NCES and the US Department of Education is less than what was actually spent. For example, in the latest NCES report on education spending Clark County claimed to have spent $2.9 billion. If you go directly to Clark's budget they admit their actual spending was $3.4 billion. Thus your low end, is not actually the low end but under reported spending.
4)Have you ever thought that kids who don't graduate arent averaged into that? That is pretty simple stats right their chief.
In fact Bill, I'm starting to think you didn't even realize there were two types of per pupil spending. You haven't been reading my answers have you?
Ok, lesson 1.
Per Pupil Spending.
Current Spending Per Pupil = in classroom expenditures. USCB took data as reported by the states and took into account the different financial rules for each state and attempted to equalize those rules as best they can to give a more uniform and more comparable result.
Total spending per pupil is exactly what it sounds like. Total spending divided by total student enrollment. Unlike the above expenditure, it includes capital costs, debt payments.
You've made a series of objections without distinguishing which you were objecting too. For your sake, I assume each objection belonged to its proper dataset. For example, objecting to looking at per pupil spending across states because state growth rates are different ONLY makes sense if you are objecting to examining total expenditures per pupil. The other "current" spending does not take into account capital costs and debt.
PAAAAAAAAAAAAAATRICK! PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATRICK!
It's your mom, son. She's calling you in for supper... WASH YOUR HANDS FIRST, YOUNG MAN.
Now; When you're done, put away all your stuff.
You can save it for college, and use it for your
thesis. Then you can argue away ad-nauseum about it in your oral defense!
Also know America settles more new legal immigrants, than any place on Mother Earth. Over 1.5 million immigrants were nationalized last year.
Should this law get the backing of millions of Americans, we have the tremendous influence to sever most welfare benefits and government handouts, to anybody who steals into a sovereign country without being processed. In states like California where in just Los Angeles county alone, an estimated 4 million illegal nationals have settled there. The clogged schools have become a breeding ground for violence, because non-English comprehension is prevalent there. Even the main school office English is spoken as a second language. The people's safety net is now overwhelmed by families, who have learned to tap every social welfare program available. Legal or otherwise! Even Federal programs-for citizens only-- has been compromised, including low income housing, pre-natal and after birth care, hospital emergency care, where the illegal uninsured, dumped on the entrance to a hospital by pirate contractors and business owners. It is Left for the taxpayer, to pick up the bill. Not just for major injury, but for flue, nail fungus or anything minor--and its free. All the while citizens are interrogated for their insurance card, social security number or money to pay. They get Scott-free care and we get a phone call from a debt collector or end up in front of a bankruptcy judge. California was just one state where local government has intentionally ignored the "Rule of Law." Poor foreign nationals have turned our neighborhoods into littered streets and heinous crime scenes as never before in our history.
Today we have a slender chance to stop this caricature of our laws. Call, write, fax or phone and make your demands real to these pro-illegal immigrant legislators. It seems their arrogant attitude can overrule the will of THE PEOPLE. The president has already informed us that an Amnesty is being readied. The problem is after the 1986 Amnesty, we were avidly promised--NO MORE. If yet another Amnesty is passed, the impoverished outside our lands will keep coming. Taxpayers have--and will be a permanent--THE BEAST OF BURDEN. Taxpayer in-perpetuity will be expected to carry in social services for every lawbreaker. We cannot afford another Amnesty. Every family from Guatemala, Kowloon and Bombay can sponsor all and every relative they possess and you end up paying for our traitorous politicians.
Go to CAPSWEB to utilize their petition to condemn Sanctuary cities. Read the facts at NUMBERSUSA, JUDICIALWATCH, FAIR AND AMERICAN PATROL
In this melting economy and our lawmakers complete resistance to the US publics policies. American patriots must do the right thing and stop this violation of Federal law. No doubt it will be very difficult because the administration in power, is run by Left wing Democrats. Sen. David Vitter, Republican-LA has drafted S95, a law if enacted, could kill all funding to any city that is infamously branded a "Sanctuary City." With indifference to American populations outcry any city that entertains as a refuge to illegal immigrants. They will have to search the deep pockets of their business co-conspirators, to insure costs for services. We all know the 50 Senators including Harry Reid, and Madam Pelosi who secretly suppressed e-verify, so that more than 300.000 illegal labor, could compete for jobs with American Workers. Reid of Nevada, as Mrs. Pelosi of California aware that their states were inundated with illegal aliens, so they had to do something? Likely the reason they made funding for E-Verify funding disappear?
What are any of these idiots thinking, when their are 10 million jobless Americans right now in these United States? They must be undead zombies not to realize without any logic, that we can't afford to subsidize as estimated by the Heritage Foundation 40 million illegal aliens? Perhaps professional people in limited numbers with absolute skills in the scientific fields. But certainly not uneducated, indigent labor who competes with legal low skilled whites, blacks or any other color, creed or religion? We all must be bloody fools not to recognize, that California nearly went into a $47 billion dollar crash. Because of the payout to the illegal poor who have figured out the way to short change Americans of their pay checks.
A great example of the avenue illegal aliens have fraudulently, exploited free money is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). In his book financial analyst and economist Edwin Rubinstein. He states that (EITC) is the largest anti-poverty program in the United States -- and the most illegal-immigrant friendly. In 2007, more than 23 million households received more than $47 billion in the EITC payments. Much of the so-called "tax relief" goes to people who never paid a cent in taxes, and may have already defrauded the government of huge sums each year. EITC has become yet another means of depriving hard-working Americans of their own resources. It robs some to give to others. he EITC is the most accessible of the major entitlement programs and used by more people than food stamps and welfare (TANF)* combined he admits.
I agree. Patrick Patrick Patrick. Basic stat 101. Mean and standard deviation. You don't get standard deviation and its importance. And, this "4)Have you ever thought that kids who don't graduate arent averaged into that? That is pretty simple stats right their chief" shows you don't understand a mean either. (and its "there" not "their"). The six year grad rate counts thousands of UNLV students who will eventually graduate as not graduating.
Apologize for your misquoting me again.
When did I ever talk about state growth rates?
The problem isn't state growth rates, its the standard deviation of funding within the state. You cannot test without knowing it, but you think you can. Basic stat 101: within groups variance versus between groups variance. Your F test is one chi-square short of an answer.