Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleSchools to state: Keep out of our kitty
Proposals would prevent education dollars from reverting to general fund
Thursday, Dec. 31, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
Sun Coverage
Chancellor Dan Klaich
Neal Smatresk
Bill Raggio
As the year draws to a close, K-12 and higher education officials are looking ahead to see how they might guard against the deep cuts, layoffs and fiscal uncertainty that defined 2009 for Nevada’s public schools.
“This is exactly the time to look at the basic ... policies and theories of how we do things,” university system Chancellor Dan Klaich said. “That doesn’t mean we’re going to have all the money to make those changes immediately, but at some point we are going to come out of this recession and when we do, it’s up to us to make sure we’re coming out smarter and stronger.”
Both K-12 and higher education officials have key proposals they think could have spared them the worst effects of the state budget crisis had they been in place. For higher ed, it’s allowing universities to keep a greater share of nonresident tuition. For K-12, it’s the creation of a rainy-day fund.
Currently Nevada universities receive the same amount from the state for all students, even though out-of-state students pay significantly higher tuition. For a student taking 12 academic credits at UNLV, in-state undergraduate tuition is $2,165 per semester, compared with $8,335 for nonresidents.
UNLV President Neal Smatresk said this funding arrangement eliminates any incentive for Nevada universities to raise money by increasing their nonresident head counts.
Had UNLV been allowed to keep the nonresident revenue, it would have meant an extra $18 million in 2009. Funding cuts at the university, which was ordered to trim $32.8 million from its annual budget, would have been about half as severe.
“I call it ‘self help,’ ” Smatresk said. “Let us help ourselves.”
Smatresk’s proposal has the support of UNR President Milton Glick, according to his spokeswoman.
Although Klaich said the state might boost revenue with nonresident students, there also needs to be balance in enrollment.
The state’s universities were built to serve Nevadans, whose costs are subsidized by the state. Too many out-of-state students might lead to resentment on the part of taxpayers, Klaich said.
Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, D-Carson City, past chairwoman of the Legislative Committee on Education, said allowing universities to keep the additional out-of-state tuition might also spur other needed changes. It could be a carrot to encourage the state’s higher ed campuses to do a better job recruiting — and retaining — those students, Parnell said.
“Getting them here is only half the battle,” Parnell said. “We need to do a better job keeping them here — not only for the well-being and benefit of the students, but for the stability of the higher ed system. They go hand in hand.”
Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, said he understands why redirecting nonresident tuition revenue to UNLV sounds like an good way to boost the campus’ self-sufficiency. But it would have a significant effect on the state’s general fund, which currently retains those dollars.
The state general fund is in “dire straits,” Raggio said.
K-12 leaders see a sounder financial future in changing how the state funds school districts.
Under the current system, once the state’s minimum per-pupil guarantee is met, the leftover revenue reverts to the state’s general fund, even if the money was originally earmarked for education.
Assembly Bill 458, which was narrowly defeated in the final hours of the 2009 Legislature, would have redirected the overage to a separate “education stabilization fund” to help protect public schools from budget cuts in future economic downturns.
Over the past two years, about $157 million in education tax revenue collected statewide reverted to the general fund.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in K-12 funding has been cut during the budget crisis, including more than $250 million in Clark County.
“Smart planning means looking ahead a number of years, not just surviving the one year that you’re in,” said Jeff Weiler, chief financial officer of the Clark County School District. “We can’t even take for granted what we have in our budget right now.
“The worst position to be in is this year-to-year uncertainty,” he said. “Will it be raises or layoffs? It’s a horrible position for all of us.”
A rainy-day fund for education makes sense, but it’s not a short-term solution to the state’s budget crisis, said Assemblyman Mo Denis, D-Las Vegas. It would take years before the fund had enough money to provide a real safety net.
Meanwhile, education continues to consume the majority of the state’s budget, and when cuts need to be made, that’s where lawmakers are going to look, said Denis, past president of the Nevada PTA.
Nevada has a habit of “funding great education programs in good times, only to cut them in the bad times,” Denis said. “This is one of those big-picture questions we’re going to have to face during the next session.”
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
- Motorcycle accident claims life of man in northeast valley
- Surprise links, negotiated deals addressed by commissioners
- Hope and change and … what’s missing?
- New York mayor has the right idea
- We don’t need a CEO in charge
- Paying our own way
- Country has ‘given’ citizens a lot
- Jerry Tarkanian: Mike Moser impresses yet again on a day to remember former Rebel greats
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
here's a thought...
adopt standardized testing so that the state qualifies for federal funds...
isn't it sad...
terribly sad...
that the scum bags on the teachers union have been able to block this most simple concept to date...
all the while...
get this...
while nevada education continually ranks near the bottom...
it is a joke...
the teachers must be defeated on this...
in fact...
the teachers need to be read the riot act...
and if they don't like it...
they can find a work elsewhere...
too bad...
we have a little gibbons monkey as a governor...
with no leadership skills whatsoever...
who seemingly enjoys doing what is wrong for the state...
sad...
terribly sad...
geez emily...
no hysteria about the holocaust today...
what a joke...
What makes the public think the Fire Dept is over paid ?
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??
Danny Ganier FIRE BATT CHF $643,511.82 2008 Clark County
Floyd Walch FIRE CAPTAIN $535,754.46 2008 Clark County
Kevin Chapman DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF $392,563.79 2008 Clark County
Gary Dudley FIRE FIGHTER II (J) $388,271.15 2008 Clark County
Steven La Sky FIRE FIGHTER II $366,692.57 2008 Clark County
Gina Geldbach Hall FIRE BATT CHF $333,430.86 2008 Clark County
Check it out at www.transparentnevada.com
There is one certain way to cut bugget costs in the CCSD quickly and with minimal influence on student education: cut the administration by no less than 50-65% across the board, no excuses. It is called REDUCTION IN FORCE. It works for the military and it will work for the CCSD if the dummies on the board and the leadership of Walt Rulffes can grasp that concept.
Students need more fully licensed and highly qualified classroom teachers, more books, paper and expendable supplies, updated technology and equipment NOT MORE ADMINISTRATORS.
If administrative positions are eliminated, culled and cut out completely there is no job, no job description, no qualifications and most of all no need for the ones employed there. Administrator X's job has been elminiated, hence his he is no longer employed; out of work, busted, unemployed or whatever you would call it. This ex-administrator can now move on to another district, retire or reapply as a qualfied teacher to return to the classroom; of course it would mean meeting certification requirements and updating of training in whatever subject the individual previous taught.
Worst of all they would have to take a tremendous cut in salary, benefits and retirement and work like a frontline classroom teacher; they would have to live the nightmare of policies, procedures, paper work and other things administrators invent for teachers to occupy their time. For some that would be too harsh...being out of the classroom would be the easier solution...anything but being a teacher again.
The solutin is simple, but the simple minded fools at Fort Fumble and the Palace of the Kings headaquarters are not attuned to doing that. They claim its in the contract that they can't do this, or can't do that...well, if the job doesn't exist any longer...the contract for those positions do not exist any longer either.
To those administrators who are REDUCED IN FORCE, Let them be:OUT OF WORK, OUT OF LUCK, and OUT OF THE DISTRICT.
If the school district continues to maintain its own police force and has to negotiate a contract with salaries and benefits that are on par with that of METRO, Mr Weiler had better get out his calculator; the eventual costs to this district will become astronomical and budget busting.
Wake up Dummies! It is time to make the police security of our schools a METRO budget item and responsibility as it once was...
Paying campus cops with GED's much more than licensed and qualified teachers with advanced degrees and post graduate credits is ludicrous, stupid and irresponsible.
Taxpayers you are being taken for a long, hard ride by the officials in this district; and that begins with the board of PTA-Soccer moms + "the missing man" who know nothing, care nothing and do nothing about the real problems of this district. Every day their inaction and lack of understanding of the REAL problems confronted by classroom teachers and studnts diminishes the qauality of education one degree more. IT IS TIME TO STOP THE NONSENSE.
I'm so tired of hearing UNLV complain about wanting more money when I never hear of any cuts that they are making and instead hear about staff members that receive raises.
rejco, I agree. and with a shrinking population, the school budget SHOULD shrink! especially when they don't need to continue building new schools like in the recent past.
The best plan would to semi privatize the universities. Allow them to retain all their tuition while the state provides tuition subsidies DIRECTLY to low-income students - allowing them to pick the school, public or private, that is best for them.
Rejco and Apple, I disagree.
The budgets for schools (overall) were egregiously under funded. If the populations shrink, then the only thing that happens is that the budgets get back to a workable level. Do you think that 40+ students in a class is viable? It's NOT, according to NCLB and federal standards. We have very low spending per pupil in CCSD and it's the "whiny adults" who advocate for the children.
That said, administration takes a huge chunk of the CCSD funding. The most successful schools in the country are those with small districts and low overhead. Then they can fund appropriately for students. If some of these salaries and positions were eliminated in favor of smaller, localized districts in sounthern nevada, you would see change (probably for the better).
And apple,
As for cuts to UNLV (and the NSHE)... just because you're not aware of what they did, doesn't mean they didn't cut. And they were cut harder than any other state organization. UNLV was cut disproportionately too. People were fired, programs were eliminated, and schools/departments were consolidated. There was a small, scheduled tuition hike (and another), which did not cover the gap in the cuts. Make no mistake, cutting happened, and it happened in a real... PAINFUL way. And this is why the new Chancellor is saying: UNLV can't take another cut.
peegee, exactly which programs were eliminated and which jobs cut? I find it hard to believe. last I heard, they sent around a survey to faculty asking them to ranking possible cuts in the colleges, but nothing has happened. in my opinion, you are making this up.
and enough with the schools were underfunded to begin with, so with fewer students, we need even more money.
Birdie, it's you who's sad - and again, you don't know what you're talking about. The teachers' "union" (assocation) did not block it. And it's not a federal fund handout. The state has to compete for it against other states, by coming up with good ideas for reform - good luck with the people we have running state ed.
I won't even read the rest of that post, but I did, unfortunately, see your holocaust post. A little anti-Semitic, maybe, bird? You're always good for a laugh - except that you're creepy. And, once again, let's see you do my job. Now, that would be more than a laugh!
"Paying campus cops with GED's much more than licensed and qualified teachers with advanced degrees and post graduate credits is ludicrous, stupid and irresponsible."
Thank you, as usual, Virgil. I wish you'd run for the board.
Patrick, Horrible idea. That is the #1 reason I wont vote for a libertarian. They want tacx dollars to fund religion.
Why should we pay so people can send kids to relgous schools? Ever heard of separation of church and state? Oh thats right libertarians dont believe in that.
Cant wait until you are taxed to send kids to muslims schools. Then you will be outraged.
Programs were cut by deans in advance of state-cuts, not by the president. When the president asks for efficiency ratings (the survey you're alluding to), deans wanted to have their ducks in a row. This is an effort to trim the fat in advance. I agree that this was necessary. But it doesn't mean that programs were not already eliminated.
Jobs? Well, almost every adjunct in the college of ed was let go, for one. I assume you only consider the tenure-track faculty when you're making your arguments. In addition, administrative positions were merged and some professional staff were also let go. Prior to this budget crisis, many faculty were retired early. I don't have specific numbers on all of these people, but it was enough (combined with a furlough for untentured faculty) to absorb the budget cuts without detrimentally impacting students.
As for this comment: "and enough with the schools were underfunded to begin with, so with fewer students, we need even more money." I figure I'd give it a new post...
What this really reflects is that a) you think all teachers in NV are terrible and b) you don't have any understanding of education. Heck, maybe you don't even value education at all. It seems most people in Vegas don't.
I agree that there are places in CCSD to trim. I still don't understand how we have so much administrative overhead. That's a huge portion of the budget. I think they need to trim.
But you are fooling yourself if you complain about the quality of our schools, students, teachers, and then take resources away in the same breath.
Nick: I'll start by saying that I'm not a libertarian. But it irks me when people throw out the "separate church and state" thing (and the pledge of allegiance too!) as evidence for their points.
It is my understanding that Libertarians fight for the content of the constitution. And because the constitution doesn't mention "separation of church and state," I think the two of you are debating different issues altogether.
BTW: Thomas Jefferson was the one who coined the phrase in a letter. The ideas are older, of course. The fact that it is policy is not the point.
On a side note: when people comment on the notion of God in the pledge of allegiance, they do so with indifference to the fact that the pledge has been changed several times throughout history. "Under God" wasn't even added until 1954!!
Peegee, the point is many are attracted to the libertarian party for the reason of getting religion in goverment or getting our tax dollars in their churches.
I do believe separation of church in state in important. Otherwise we are just like the middle east.
Once again the birdman of ignorance shows his ugliness. Obviously, wherever Birdman grew up, they also paid little into annual per pupil expenditures. Do some research and if you want to continually use the "Nevada is ranked lowest" card, present statistics from the highest ranked states. You will find a correalation between what states spend and the results they yeild. If you bring Utah into the argument as the lowest per pupil expenditure with the highest results, list the percent of two parent families by state (apples to oranges). Most of the bloggers here are windbags with little to no ability to research a topic prior to opening their big mouths. This is evidentced daily the bottom feeding birdman.
Nick,
I don't think you get it at all. Libertarians are not interested in getting government in the church. Real libertarians are about getting the government out of people's personal and economic lives.
Besides, if our government ran the churches we'd be a nation of atheists in 50 years. Nothing is more capable of destroying big, healthy commerce and industry like our own government.
PS, Nick, vouchers are about giving the money to the parent so they can pick the school of their choice. It is not a subsidy to religion. Besides many private schools are secular. (But you're not a religious bigot are you?)
Vouchers don't always win in court over this issue, but tax-credits do. Courts have consistently ruled that a tax credit goes to the parent not to the private school. Tax credits will be better at controlling costs because parents have to pay out of their pocket up front and receive their money back later. However, this is a bigger burden on the poor.
Vouchers are better to help poor kids into private schools because the money is given to them up front.
A means tested voucher (vouchers adjusted by parental income) with a tax credit option make a good compromise.
PS, in parts of Canada and in Sweden you can get your private tuition paid, at least in part by the government. I believe religious schools can receive funding too. They don't seem to be having a crisis there. They also have better systems of public education.
Pat:
Getting my tax dollar in your church is the problem. I do not think Libertarians want the govt in the church but I do think they want the church in govt.
I should not be forced to fund religous organizations and schools. And as your attitude suggests, goverment is anti religion when so much evidence is the contrary. Christmas, Easter, etc. all celebrated by the govt. God Bless America screamed from all the politcians. I dont know why you think John Ensign is a good moral compass.
BTW, I am for small govt and less taxes and less spending. The social stance of libertarians is what turns me off. Also if you give tax money to churches, they will just want to grow and expand as well. It wont be a good fiscal move.
Patrick you are preaching wealth redistribution. Tax one group give it to another.
SBF,
Check this out. http://npri.org/publications/frivolous-i... I compared Florida (which is being sued to increase its per pupil spending) to some of the biggest spending states in the nation. Across many categories Florida beats those big spending states in raw scores and in attainment growth.
What is amazing about Florida, is that it is a majority minority state (unlike Utah which has the lowest per pupil spending in the nation but puts up some decent numbers of its own).
As you said spending and student achievement are not correlated.
Nick,
You are already forced to fund dysfunctional public schools. The only alternative that does not use force is to privatize all public schools and use no tax dollars. That will not fly with most Americans. Vouchers and tax credits are a compromise.
Vouchers and tax credits are given to the parent. Not the school. Parents get to pick what school they want. ALREADY, in special education, public schools MAY send a special needs kid to a private school for education (this is required by Federal law if the public school cannot provide appropriate services). ALREADY you are funding religious schools as the public school can and DO send handicapped kids to whatever school, including religious ones, that can provide the best service for that child.
Don't be a bigot, and don't presume to know whether or not I belong to a church.
So what is it? Completely defund public education and get no where (it won't happen)? Continue funding dysfunctional public education commune where the rich kids get the best schools and the poor kids get the leftovers? Or provide assistance for parents to seek alternatives?
PS, yes vouchers are socialism, but at least it is market socialism. Right now public education is command and control communism. It simply doesn't work.
What are you going to do about it Nick? How do you improve education in a realistic way?
I am not a bigot because I do want to live in a libertarian church state. I think everyone should be able to attend any religous ceremonies they want and be able to educate their childen at a school of their choice.
Religous schools are more dysfunctional than public in general although there are some bad public ones out there.
Your assertion that because the wealth redistribution is already happening, so more of it is better is a flawed argument.
Wealth redistribution and a church state are the two big parts of the libertarian platform I cant hang with. If there was a party that would reduce goverment in our lives, I would be the first in line to vote for them.
Pat:
Education is like healthcare. One problem is the spending is done by people who are not paying. Rather than charge people without kids MORE taxes and people with kids less taxes, that should be reversed. If parents actually were paying for school, we could have a more rational discussion on spending. $8000 per kid we spend. If I have 3 kids, you and I know few parents pay taxes for that. Yet they are screaming for smaller classes and new computers!
Also the vouchers would be less offensive if they were a tool to redirect your taxes and not a tool to spend mine.
The future is uncertain but I am seeing the days of brick and mortar buildings and a staff as cost prohibitive for many services, possibly education. Education like healthcare is a run away expense. The end user must start contributing.
Libertarian church state is an oxymoron. Libertarians want less government not more. Get it straight. Nor are libertarians into wealth redistribution. If possible they would see it eliminated. Where not possible they would see it done smarter.
I think you might be a bigot because your dislike of religion seems to be clouding your judgement on whether or not kids can get a good education at any private school - religious or secular. Religious schools - like Catholic schools - accept any student regardless of faith, btw.
Making parents pay for the full cost of their child's education probably would result in a better quality education.
However this is not a workable solution because many Americans disagree. For now, we are stuck with public education. The question is how to make it better? Vouchers and tax credits are one simple way to do that.
You seem to want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. You will get nowhere with that line of thinking.
PS, vouchers wouldn't cost any more money than we are already spending. In fact, every voucher program in the country spends less on the voucher than on the public school's per pupil spending. In fact, private schools are already cheaper than public schools.
We could end up saving lots of money if we went to a voucher/tax credit wide public education system. That means less wealth redistribution by being smarter with our money.
Pat:
"Libertarian church state is an oxymoron. Libertarians want less government not more. Get it straight"
I know they want less goverment, so they can GROW the church, at tax payer's expense!
The enemy of good? I do not agree that religous education is good and public is bad. And religous schools DO NOT accept any student. They must comply with the forced lifestyle. That is NOT FREEDOM.
BTW, I realize parents will not pay for the entire education but if we could change the percentage some, it would help, Like healthcare, some people will not be able to pay all their expense but should expect to contribute. So maybe not full cost of education but the more kids you have, it should cost more not less (as it does currently). Less tax for 6 kids than 2. Makes no sense.
I am not a big fan of goverment, but if my choice is more goverment or more religion, I will go with goveremnet. They are more for equality and less hyporitcal and judgemental. Freedom is too important to sacrafice for policy.
You seem to be quick to give up freedom for a compromise.
Peegee, you did not give one example of a program that was actually cut. it's not a credible argument if you can't give any specifics. as far as I understand, faculty did the little surveys and nothing was cut.
hey teacher...
oh my goodness...
competition...
imagine that...
competition...
welcome to the real world...
tell you what...
your constant whining and defeatist attitude really is sad..
terribly terribly sad...
do you quit at everything you do...
keep patting yourself on the back for a job poorly done...
make no mistake...
you are part of the problem...
and clearly have no interst in finding a solution...
other than that...
happy new year!!!
Patrick - you always come on these articles advocating vouchers and making false claims that private schools are cheaper. A $5000 voucher simply will not fund the cost of a private education beyond 5th grade (and very limited choices through 5th grade at that). Most private schools in this area are $10,000 to $20,000 per year and have capacity for a couple thousand students, not 300,000. So please tell the rest of us which private schools offer programs for the cost of your proposed voucher and where the capacity is going to come from.
Nick--could you explain how you conclude that Nevada schools are more heavily funded by parents without kids than by parents with kids? I fail to understand how sales taxes, gaming taxes, property taxes, etc. are based on family status.
Facts, the Feds contribute.
The facts,
Private schools on average ARE cheaper than public schools. That is a fact.
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/a...
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/t...
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/t...
Only 1/3rd of all private schools charge double digit tuition. Even still, with vouchers/tax credits you create more demand for private schools options which most likely would result in the opening of more private schools,keeping costs low (more so with tax credits).
"I know they want less government, so they can GROW the church, at tax payer's expense!"
Nick, that is pure nonsense. You do not know what you're talking about. Most libertarians I know are agnostic or atheist or are religious but strongly believe in the separation of church and state. They don't find vouchers to violate that because the money is given to the parent. This is not a choice between more government and more religion. You've got a failure in logic here -- false dichotomy for one.
This is a choice between un-competitive public education and competitive public education. The people who choose a religious school, MAY OR MAY NOT be religious. The people who are religious and choose a religious school are going to be religious with or without a voucher. Nothing changes. Given the fact that there are dozens of voucher programs around the world, and no crisis of religious takeover in the first world, your fears are unfounded.
"Making the perfect the enemy of the good"
This means you care only for the "best" solution that you will not even bother with a compromised solution that moves the ball in your direction.
We cannot have a fully privatized system of education because so few Americans want that. We're stuck with public education for now.
Given that FACT, your obstinate preference for the perfect means you are willing to sit on your hands and do nothing leaving kids stuck in a miserable system of public education that fails them.
PS nick, vouchers don't give up freedom from compromise.
1) You're already funding an expensive public education monopoly. One that transfers most of the wealth to the rich kids.
2) A voucher gives parents, especially low-income parnets the freedom to choose a school for their kid.
3) Taxpayers are made no worse off than they already are. Especially since private schools and vouchers are often less than the cost of a public school.
The result is a lower cost, higher quality education that offers choice and freedom (alternative schooling options) to millions of parents and their kids.
If the CCSD believes the public is going to buy another round of 'sobing and tears as well as moaning and groaning' about insufficient funds they are a rude awakening coming. There is plenty of money already alocated for education in this district; the problem is a matter of priorities.
Walt Rulffes and the Board of Trustees choose to add to the administrative level as their top priority; taxpayers, parents, teachers and students see a different emphasis. The former are interested in enriching their 'good ole boy/girl' cronies with second, after retirment jobs while the latter want monies spent on direct education of children.
Children K-12 need fully licensed and quaified teachers in every classroom for each and every subject, not more mentors, managers, supervisors, overseerers or other considered experts; there is no need for more administrators, and frankly, about 50% of the current ones already employed.
Schools don't need their own mini-police substations staffed by 2-3 campus cops. That is where money is being wasted; school security is the primary responsibility of Metro as it has been since this school system was first organized.
Regarding the size of the budget for district police, Mr Jeff Weiler, the head honcho for district finance remarked that the campus police budget was only 1% of the district total expenditures; what Mr. Weiler failed to mention at the time is that that total budget amounts to BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, and 1% of that is a tremendous amount of taxpayer money being wasted.
If Bard of Trustees and Walt Rulffes as Superintendent of Schools for the district don't get a grasp on reality and the real facts about budgetary waste in administration the taxpaying and voting citizens will do it at the ballot box be it a trustee election or a bond issue election.
This district has more than enough money allocated to it. Budget cuts, beginning with 50% of the administration is the priority that must begin to be considered. Don't expect the public to support massive slashes of 1,000 teachers to be the solve all to this problem. No way is that going to happen. No way will cuts in valuable courses or programs be considered without first demonstrating the willingness to reduce district budget cuts by 50-65% of all district adminsitrative positions form central offices to each individual school in this district.
You will do it, or we, the taxpayers and voters will do it for you...one way or another this will not continue.
PS, the Facts,
The reason why many voucher programs offer so little money is because Public School apologists and unions lobby to ensure the tuition amount is really low. Nevertheless private schools have been more than willing to accept that low tuition.
In DC for example, two kids go to Sidwell Friends (you know, the one with Obama's kids) and the school, which charges $30,000 a year) accepts the $7,000 voucher.
Florida has a tuition tax credit program that allows private companies to make donations and receive dollar-for-dollar tax credit. The money is used to give scholarships to low income kids. The scholarships in Florida are worth a MAX of $3950...per pupil spending in the state is over $7,000 per kid.
The tuition tax credit program in Florida serves more than 23,000 kids and there is even greater demand (the state legislature capped the amount that could be donated thus limiting the amount of kids that could participate).
So if $5,000 isn't enough, lets spend $7,900 on the voucher -- about what our public schools get here in Nevada (excluding capital outlays and debt payment of course).
Forcing tax payers to fund religion is a loss of freedom.
Requiring students to adhere to religous schools life style is a loss of freedom.
Dont let the libertarians fool you. They have a religous agenda and will stop at nothing to TAX you for their religion.
Nick--the article is about the State funding for education, not Federal. State taxes in NV have nothing to do with family status, just spending habits and property taxes.
Birdie brain, I have some news for you. I will glad to be responsible for my students testing with the exception of the ones who do not come to class, do not pay attention, do no work, are a constant disruption, sleep, and DO NOT CARE! These 8-10 students out of 40, per class, will not fall under my responsibility. I would like to receive babysitting wages for those who want to be anywhere but class, I would then get a raise.
Patrick - you can't exclude capital or debt payments when talking about vouchers - where do you think the physical capacity for 300,000 students is going to come from?? Also, who cares if there are private schools in another part of the country that charge less tuition? Local vouchers have to be able to afford local education or again, you are comparing apples and oranges. Show me the local schools beyond 5th grade charging less than $10,000.
Also, please explain how the public education system is transferring wealth to the rich kids?
Patrick--by the way, thank you for proving my point with your first link above. In 2004, non-elementary private education that is not religiously affiliated on average cost $13,300. So what would that cost be today do you think? And if you think we should consider the religiously affiliated schools also, then lets consider that many of those are subsidized by their religious base before we pretend these are an apples-apples comparison.
hey rngsweeney...
boo hoo hoo...
wah wah wah...
quit your belly aching...
and deal with it...
teachers in other states deal with it...
but for some reason...
the teachers in nevada don't feel like they have to...
they just like to make excuses...
pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse...
the way i see it...
you are part of the solution...
or you are a part of the problem...
and with all the finger pointing and belly aching the teachers do...
there is no way in hell they are part of the solution...
like i said before...
it is time to read the teachers the riot act...
get with the program...
or hit the road...
and oh by the way...
given the current state of the economy...
i have no doubt there are lots of people looking for work now who would make excellent teachers...
Teacher - it makes perfect sense that security guards make more money than school teachers. We live in the U.S. where it is a free market and supply-and-demand means that you can pay less money when the supply is large. Education is one of the easiest college majors and every idiot gets an education degree ... so despite there being "good" teachers, there are more "bad" ones and hence the salaries are and should be low.
UNLV is facing major budget cuts if current predictions of declining state and tax revenues continue to materialize. This is a serious matter for the university, but considering the fact that the leadership decided to hire a new football coach at the hefty salary of $350,000+ plus bonuses, perks, additional benefits and PERS retirement that is a little bit excessive. With kind of foolish and idiotic thinking I have no sympathy for administrators who make such decisions in these hard time.
It is time for officials and everyone else connected to and interested in the future of UNLV to realize we can no longer continue to dream and fantasize about big time athletics at this school. Is UNLV to continue to develop as a top level academic institution based on research and teaching or is it to remain a bush league school that operates more as a factory producing athletes than academically oriented & trained graduates? Should UNLV an on-the-job training ground, a minor league franchise of sort, for the professional sports teams of Football, Basketball and Baseball?
UNLV is at a critical point in its young history and now is the time for level heading thinking of those in whose control this university is currently entrusted to decide its true destiny. Either this school will continue to develop and eventually become a nationally recognized top notch academic school noted for its excellence in teaching and research or it will fall to the way side as another school primarily for athletes.
comment on UNLV continued:
Personally I believe this university has a greater future in the academic arena than any potential that could possibly arise from questionable athletic programs. This school will never be, nor will it be able to compete with larger, long standing universities. Great universities come into existence, develop and grow because of outstanding academic and research programs, not because of great athletic teams. Greatness arises first from name recognition and achievement in scholastics and research in the academic arena, then athletic programs may develop and arise. But many ill informed in this community and state see it as the reverse: build great athletic teams, then we will have a great university. That is faulty, phony, mindless garbage of those who look to university athletics strictly as an entertainment venue.
In the late l940's University of Nevada in Reno, then the state's only university was emerging as a football program of some note; I believe it was in the late 40's or early 50's that Nevada participated in a major football bowl game (Sugar Bowl?) but lost the game; the result was a financial collapse of the athletic program that had been driven and placed its prestige on winning the game. The loss was a financial nightmare that ended in the U of N dropping football until it was revised, small time, in 1957. That history must be remembered and considered again with regards to UNLV's future athletic endeavors, ventures or wishful thinking.
History, bad history in fact, tends to repeat itself more often than is ever desired. The time may come soon for those in control of UNLV to consider dropping all big time athletics and concentrate efforts on expanding it academically first.
Birdie. You're slipping. Not even one "skippy" this entire thread. And not even one "Comment removed by staff."
But it's good to see that the entire community, with the exception of a few other wackos, sees through your BS for what it is.
And vestini, I think I agree with maybe 90% of your well-substantiated (and cogent) thoughts. You do a good job of pushing this discussion forward.
But I do not agree that athletics is so easy an issue to criticize. I graduated the University of Connecticut and without the athletics program, their ACADEMIC initiatives would not have met with such great success. Students FLOCKED to the university because of a nationally ranked athletics program. In their history, they've won Men's and women's BBall (once in the same year!), Men's soccer, Women's field hockey, and many other great competitors from other sports. Football has only been 1a for a few years and already competed in a few bowl games.
The point is that students see a university for everything. Without athletics, UConn would have had a MUCH more difficult road to becoming the top public university in New England. Besides, the athletic budget is more-or-less self-sufficient there. Bowl games, tv contracts, sponsorships, and donors make up more than the cost to the university. PLUS, athletics was able to build new facilities for all of the students (field house, gyms, etc.).
So, if you look at it as an investment... then it's not so clear cut. UNLV CAN be great. But how that's achieved is far from clear.
Nice try! In my opinion, the academics are never going to compete with a top university, but the football and basketball could... unless you plan on taking advantage of budget cuts to eliminate departments that are full of dead weight and then reestablish them with new, hard-working, qualified faculty when the economy turns around.
Audit the educational division of Nevada. Have someone explain/justify why the rebuild of Rancho High School cost taxpayers around $100Million. Where is the accountability related to the spending of our tax dollars?
People talking about budget cuts and qualified faculty, at the university level, need to realize that, nationally, an average of 75% of undergrad courses at PhD-granting universities are taught by non-tenured faculty.
That's three in four undergrad courses taught by full-time non-tenure track, part-time, or grad student teachers.
This makes the "dead weight" a lot harder to get rid of--but that other 75% give the modern public university the (considerable!) labor flexibility it has: they're the ones who suffer in short-term funding crises.
In my experience, people who bitch about "departments full of dead weight" tend to imagine something that something like 90% of the university teaching staff are those "tenured radicals" made notorious by right-wing polemics. Which was never the case--but it was a lot closer to being true 30 yrs ago.
Thus, if you're bitching about "departments full of dead weight," you probably don't know that you've already won that battle. Collectively, university faculty are poorer and have less job security than ever before. It will be very hard to make the university more efficient at their expense--you'll need to look elsewhere....
Do people in Nevada have to pay property taxes? I just had to pay a $580 prop tax bill here in Calif, which I'm pretty mad about. (And then there's our 10% sales tax. Even with all that, the state is STILL facing financial collapse in 2012) I hope there are more colossal education cuts. Just let UCLA become private.