Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Feb. 8, 2010 | 6 p.m.
Reader poll
State of the State
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
Gov. Jim Gibbons gave an emergency State of the State address at 6 p.m. Monday, Feb. 8. Video is courtesy KVBC Channel 3.
The following is the full text of Gov. Jim Gibbons' State of the State address, delivered at 6 p.m. Monday:
Sun Archives
- Governor plans emergency address on Nevada budget (2-7-10)
- Governor’s speech will lay out state’s budget problems (2-7-10)
- State budget comes up $800 million short (1-22-10)
- Forecast: Economy will begin to rebound in mid-2011 (1-22-10)
- Gibbons’ no-talk order further divides branches (1-22-10)
- Special session may require help of state Supreme Court (1-10-10)
Sun Coverage
Hello, I’m Governor Jim Gibbons. I am always honored to speak directly to you. But the truth is, I would rather that the circumstances did not compel me to address you tonight.
The great inventor and statesman Thomas Edison once said, “Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work.” This insight means a lot to me. My staff has been hard at work reviewing the state budget, the services our state government provides and the dramatic shortfall in state revenues. We are working on solutions to turn this recession into an opportunity to reinvent our State’s government. We may never have an opportunity like this again. The dire economic situation we are facing now requires immediate action.
While there is some evidence to suggest that our nation is approaching the end of this economic decline, the fact is, this recession still has a crippling hold on Nevada. Nevada's unemployment rate is 13 percent. That's the second highest unemployment rate in the nation. More than 140,000 Nevadans have lost their jobs, and 90,000 more are projected to join the unemployment rolls over the next 18 months. Recent data shows a 4.6 percent drop in personal income for our residents.
For almost all Nevadans, their greatest asset is their home. Home values in Nevada plummeted 24.5 percent in the third quarter of 2009. That’s the steepest decline of any state and more than 6 times the national average. Nevadans are losing their homes to foreclosure at a rate that is four times the national average.
These are just a few of the economic indicators showing the devastating impact Nevadans suffer each day. But you and I don’t need statistics to understand the pain. Each of us knows someone who has recently lost a job. Each of us knows a family who has lost their home because they couldn’t pay their mortgage. All across this state tonight families are sitting at their kitchen table talking about what they can and cannot afford. All across the state tonight, small business owners are making tough decisions, such as choosing between cutting benefits or keeping loyal employees.
As your Governor, my job is no different than that of your family or your business. You have your checkbook in one hand and your bills in the other, and you do your best to make ends meet. Nevada’s General Fund revenues – money which we use to pay for important services like education, public health and law enforcement – dropped 17 percent in 2009. Between now and June 2011, the state General fund will fall about $1 billion short of its $6 billion budget. Just like Nevada’s families, just like Nevada’s businesses – it is time for Nevada government to face facts and make tough choices about the services we can and cannot afford.
This unprecedented economic situation is a crisis. Therefore, I will be issuing a proclamation convening a Special Session of the Nevada Legislature on February 23. This is not a responsibility I take lightly, this is an extraordinary time and we must take action.
This is not the first battle Nevada has faced. In fact, from our humble beginnings Nevadans have always beaten the odds. The first Nevadans survived overwhelming hardships to move west and seize the privilege of being the first to say “Home Means Nevada.” Our State joined the Union in the middle of the bloodiest war ever endured on American soil – the Civil War. Over the last 145 years, the independent spirit of Nevada has led us from tragedy to triumph time and time again. We are survivors. There is a reason our state flag says Battle Born. Our state, our people do not back down from a challenge. Neither will I.
In 2007, Nevada’s economy began a downturn which I knew was not temporary. The Executive Budget I prepared in January of 2009 scaled back state government to weather this crisis. More importantly, the balanced budget I submitted imposed no new taxes and allowed no expansion of state government. The Nevada Legislature disregarded my solution. They raised taxes one billion dollars, and they made government bigger. They made the wrong call. I vetoed their new taxes and their inflated spending. I thought it was wrong then. I KNOW it’s wrong now. I planned responsibly. They gambled on new taxes and we all lost.
Despite the Legislature’s new taxes, our state revenues continue going down. More taxes have not helped Nevada’s economy. They never will. Even with $1 billion in new taxes, the state budget is now nearly $1-billion short. You tell me, did raising taxes work? NO. Now, the State of Nevada MUST reduce spending by nearly $900-million. I recently released dozens of proposals to get our budget back on track. I’d like to talk about a few of them with you tonight.
*Last year I recommended 6% salary reductions for all state workers. The Legislature imposed furlough days instead. The furlough program is not working. It is unfair because some state workers have pay reductions and some don’t. As we work through this budget, we will look for EVERY WAY TO SAVE MONEY. Many private businesses across the state have cut salaries in order to reduce layoffs or stay in business. New across-the-board salary reductions for state workers, may be necessary, but that will be a last resort. And just so you know, my entire staff in the Governor’s Office has had their pay cut 6 percent. I am donating 6% of my own salary back to the state to be used for special awards for exceptional teachers.
*It is with deep sadness and disappointment that I must propose laying off several hundred state workers. Just like the layoffs in the private sector, state government must do the same. My heart is heavy about this because these are hard-working public servants who will have their lives severely impacted. We are doing everything possible to absorb people into other positions helping in our state safety-net of programs assisting those in need, but some layoffs are inevitable.
*The Nevada State Prison in Carson City is 140 years old. It has outlived is usefulness. It is no longer safe and its operating costs are far too high. I am proposing closing the Prison and moving the inmates to other facilities in the state.
*Unfortunately, the gravity of our situation is so dire, we will have to make reductions to some healthcare programs. We are trying to combine programs that duplicate health services and we are making every effort to minimize the impacts of these reductions. I will protect programs that protect our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.
*I am also introducing the Education Gift Certificate. These will be available at many state facilities, like the DMV, or you’ll be able to download one off my website. You can use the gift certificate to donate money to a non-profit organization that will make sure your money is spent ONLY on teachers’ salaries. For those of you who can afford to help our teachers, I encourage you do it.
*I have had the honor of serving Nevada in both our Legislature and in the United States Congress. When I ran for Governor in 2006, I traveled across Nevada and spoke with many of you. I made you a promise. I guaranteed you I would not raise your taxes. Unfortunately, in the politics of today, such promises are a dime a dozen. But mine is not just a promise, it is a principle.
In this tough economy, we cannot ask our citizens to pay new taxes. They have nothing left to give. We cannot ask our businesses to pay more taxes. Many of them are struggling just to stay open. The only thing we can do – the right thing to do – is what you did at your kitchen table tonight. We must cut our state spending. We must reduce the size of state government. “No New Taxes” is NOT a cliché. To me it means more than that. It is a plan.
A plan that means limiting government to its core functions. It means recognizing that businesses do not exist solely for the purpose of funding government programs. It means that people are entitled to keep the money they earn and do not have to forfeit those earnings to some bureaucrat who decides that you are not spending your money correctly. I HAVE KEPT MY WORD. I REAFFIRM MY WORD TO YOU TONIGHT. AS LONG AS I SERVE AS YOUR GOVERNOR, I WILL NOT RAISE TAXES.
As President Ronald Reagan once said, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear.”
Just as Nevada’s real estate market inflated in value to an unsustainable level, so has our state government. Nevada’s tax base, Nevada’s population and Nevada’s job market can no longer pay for the bloated government services which were funded when Nevada’s economy was booming. More government spending and more government mandates are never the answer.
With 13 percent of our citizens unemployed, Nevada cannot continue to fund government as we know it today. Society is changing. State government must change with it. We must focus on the important services which ensure life, health, education and public safety. We will have to eliminate programs and services which make some people feel good, but which we simply can no longer afford. We must cut government spending to ease the burden on our citizens and our businesses.
Despite the promise of economic recovery through the federal stimulus package, Washington has failed to help Nevada. Nevada ranks near the bottom of per capita federal spending, and we rank dead last in per capita stimulus funds. Although there is a perception that Nevada has clout with this Administration, Washington has turned a deaf ear to our problems.
As your Governor, I wake up every morning determined to get Nevadans off the unemployment lines and back into their homes. We can’t rely on Washington, D.C. to lead us out of this crisis. We can’t lean on county and city governments. They are struggling with their own revenue shortfalls. No government, alone, can lead us out of this crisis. Our people will. Our businesses will. Our independent spirit will. Nevadans will solve Nevada’s problems.
One of the most important roles state government plays today is in economic development. Lieutenant Governor Brian Krolicki, state and local officials and my staff are working tirelessly to bring new businesses to Nevada to create good-paying jobs for our hardworking families. We are looking not only to expand our manufacturing base, but also to bring new green energy jobs to Nevada.
In addition to building facilities to generate solar, wind and geothermal power, we are also working to establish research and development facilities for newer, better green technologies. This will not only help our environment, it will create new, long-term jobs in Nevada.
More new jobs and green jobs will come with the establishment of Nevada as the recycling capital of the west. Technology exists today to convert 75 percent of all waste collected into recycled materials for construction and agricultural use. New recycling facilities will create jobs and generate clean energy. Right now, we are working with Carson City officials to make their community the first pilot project for this technology. When we launch this program statewide, we will eliminate landfills as we know them today and stop Nevada from becoming the dumping ground for California’s trash.
Creating jobs and attracting tourists to Nevada are two of my top priorities. I have ordered the Nevada Commission on Tourism to present me a report within 30 days with their ideas and plans to get more visitors to come to Nevada. This will take quick and creative thinking to get results, but it is time for quick and creative action that gets results.
Also, I have ordered the Nevada Commission on Economic Development to present me with a report within 30 days with their ideas, plans and projects presently in the pipeline to encourage companies to locate or re-locate in Nevada…or encourage existing Nevada businesses to expand. I want you to know, that nearly every day, I meet with business owners in Nevada to see what I can do as Governor to get them to expand their businesses here and create new jobs. We MUST take advantage of the tourism, convention, and construction infrastructure we already have in place in Nevada.
A core function of Nevada state government is education. Our K-12 schools and the Nevada System of Higher Education make up 54% of all General Fund spending. But we can’t solve a $1 billion hole in a $6 billion budget if half of that budget is off the table.
In 2004 I co-authored the Education First Initiative, to require legislators to fund education first and to prevent them from holding education hostage in budget negotiations. As a graduate of Nevada public schools, I am firmly committed to improving K-12 education in Nevada. Our education system is the intellectual infrastructure for Nevada’s future. Improvement will require new ideas and fresh resolve. It’s time to stop whining that education in Nevada doesn’t work because of a lack of funding. We need to quit throwing money at programs that haven’t worked and don’t work for our children.
In early January I unveiled the Gibbons Education Reform plan. My plan calls for parents, teachers and communities to be responsible for their local schools and in control of their children’s education. Bureaucrats and politicians in Washington, D.C. and Carson City, whose ideas of education reform start and end with writing a blank check, have no business dictating how your child is educated. We need to empower local school boards and parents to make decisions which are right for their children so they can decide how their kids are educated.
Nevada taxpayers spend billions of dollars on education. It’s time to let local school boards, teachers, and parents have a voice in how that money is spent.
The cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to public education has had its time and proven that it doesn’t work anymore. What works in Las Vegas, may not work in Winnemucca or Tonopah. A good idea in Elko may not make any sense in Sparks or Mesquite.
Despite 20 years of state imposed student-teacher ratios in first, second and third grade, student achievement in Nevada has not improved. The Nevada Department of Education recently announced 142 of the 613 public schools in Nevada qualify as the “worst” schools in the nation. That means 23 percent of our public schools are failing.
I WILL NOT accept that. If 142 of our schools are not making the grade, what we are doing doesn’t work. Throwing more money at this system won’t change anything. Continuing to allow unions to dictate Nevada’s education policy doesn’t work. We need true reform. We need change. We need to rethink how we deliver public education in Nevada. We need to make better use of existing resources. We need to empower local school boards to use their money to deliver the right programs to our kids to achieve the best results. Programs like class size reduction and full-day kindergarten are based on good intentions, but programs cannot be judged on their intentions. They must be judged on their results.
Under my Education Reform plan, these programs will not be eliminated, only the mandate from Carson City will. If a local school board decides a program works for their kids, they can do it. And they will have the flexibility to do it, not because the government tells them, but because they decide it is best for their students.
For the past 25 years, Nevada schools struggled with increasing enrollment. Fundamental issues like having classrooms for students and scrambling to get desks and textbooks became the issues of the day. In the current school year, student population has dropped. We now have a golden opportunity to catch our breath and rethink how we can best provide education to our children. I request the Nevada Legislature give my Education Reform plan a fair hearing in the upcoming Special Session.
The economic crisis we face cannot be fixed with gimmicks or gadgets or temporary patches. The problem IS our system. We MUST find a permanent solution. We must commit to a fundamental evaluation of what problems require government intervention and what problems we must fix ourselves. We must accept that limiting government means expanding personal responsibility. Nevada state government cannot afford to be all things to all people. I am asking state employees to do more with less. I am asking our teachers to do more with less. I am asking our Legislators and Constitutional Officers to do more with less. I am demanding our programs work or be eliminated. And I will ask our citizens to accept less from government and to take more personal responsibility. Government must make sacrifices, just like your family and just like our businesses. There are no easy answers. Anything easy has already been done.
We have to make hard choices, and we need your support.
I am up to this challenge. I will never surrender. I am not a quitter.
I have already released many of my recommendations to reduce state spending and I will continue to release specific facts, details and plans to solve the immediate fiscal crisis. My staff continues to work to develop a long-term, sustainable plan to reduce the size of state government and the services we offer so that our revenue will support the government services Nevadans truly need.
We are in the middle of the greatest economic crisis of our generation. It won’t last forever and there will be a recovery. Not tomorrow. Not next week. And things may get worse before they get better. But we will survive. We will overcome. And we will emerge with a state government that is leaner and smarter. A state government that works FOR us, not AGAINST us.
I am convinced better days and brighter futures are ahead for all of us.
Together we’ll pull through this. We share the same spirit. We are Battle Born. We are One Nevada.
God Bless our great nation, God Bless our troops, and God Bless OUR great State of Nevada.
Thank you and good night.
Where's the beef?
Any legislator who does not support an increase in the taxes on the mining industry is a disgrace to humanity. The governor already is a disgrace to humanity, so there's no need to go on about him. But if anyone is out there who voted for him, I'm still trying to find you!
Student population is increasing at a double digit rate at CSN, and yet Governor Gibbons says nothing about having asked higher education to take the highest hit in the last round of budget cuts.
"a state government that works FOR us, not AGAINST us."
What an insult to decent hard working government employees in this state.
What a clown.
Basically: "Government doesn't work and I got elected to prove it."
How much better off would the state's finance be today if the legislature had listen to the Governor last year? Would we be searching for $900 million or much less.
We cannot keep spending in Nevada any more than we can keep spending in Washington D.C. It's time for a real change and some fiscal reality.
neiman1--answer is--we would be no better off. The Governor did not propose spending less than forecasted revenue. The problem with the budget was that base revenues were forecast too high. The Governor was not 'right' and the Legislature 'wrong'. Both relied on the same base revenue.
"*I am also introducing the Education Gift Certificate. These will be available at many state facilities, like the DMV, or you'll be able to download one off my website. You can use the gift certificate to donate money to a non-profit organization that will make sure your money is spent ONLY on teachers' salaries."
I am ashamed at this suggestion. Absolutely an embarrassment to everyone in this state.
Election Day can't get here soon enough.
If all 16,000 (non-education related) state employees were terminated there'd still be a $300 million dollar State budget deficit!?
Those that tax rightfully deserve failure.
: {
I'am no supporter of the governor. I believe he has presented an honest road to fixing the states budget problems. In order to survive the current problem we must cut spending no, matter how much it hurts. Nevada residents do not have the money for additional taxes. Lets hope the Democrat Leglislature will make the difficult cuts to save the state.
Please impeach this man now . He has gone off the deep end. He is a total embarrassment to the STATE of NEVADA.
I am new to the State of Nevada and know nothing of Gov. Gibbons past or promises made and not upheld. His State of the State address hit many hot points with me; education, Nevada's fair share of the stimulus money, laying off or cutting back state workers, doing whatever has to be done to get Nevada's educational system so it competes with the top schools in the country rather than holding down the bottom (and not throwing money at the educator's). This is now my State and I have a lot to learn about it. I would like to be a part of the solution rather than contributing to it already many problems.
graveldown- NV has ranked 49th in per student expenditures for the past 15 some-odd years.
Pray tell, when have we "thrown money at education"???
What a great speech!
Boy you sure can hear the squeeling from the public servants and the educators. They sure want to push blame off onto someone else about why they have been so unsuccessful!
Get em Jim
Welcome to the private sector.
www.Curtis4governor.com
"And just so you know, my entire staff in the Governor's office has had their pay cut 6 percent."
Yeah, but that was after he gave them raises first.
"I am donating 6% of my own salary back to the state to be used for special awards for exceptional teachers."
Which teacher wants to be the first to get the "Gibbons award"?
"Recent data shows a 4.6 percent drop in personal income for our residents."
. . . while most State employees have had their personal income decreased by close to 10%.
"I have ordered the Nevada Commission on Tourism to present me a report within 30 days with their ideas and plans to get more visitors to come to Nevada."
"Also, I have ordered the Nevada Commission on Economic Development to present me with a report within 30 days with their ideas, plans and projects presently in the pipeline to encourage companies to locate or re-locate in Nevada."
After 3 1/2 years as Governor he still doesn't know what they're doing?
". . . and 90,000 more are projected to join the unemployment rolls over the next 18 months."
Where did he find this statistic. . . NPRI, perhaps?
"More importantly, the balanced budget I submitted imposed no new taxes and allowed no expansion of state government."
It actually did include a tax increase which he didn't approve, therefore his budget was not balanced.
"I am also introducing the Education Gift Certificate. These will be available at many state facilities, like the DMV, or you'll be able to download one off my website. You can use the gift certificate to donate money to a non-profit organization that will make sure your money is spent ONLY on teachers' salaries. For those of you who can afford to help our teachers, I encourage you do it."
Can tip jars be far behind?
"As President Ronald Reagan once said, 'No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear.'"
Of course government was bigger at the end of the Reagan administration than the beginning.
"We are working on solutions to turn this recession into an opportunity to reinvent our State's government. We may never have an opportunity like this again."
Ahhh, his real agenda, no wonder he's done nothing in 3 1/2 years to pull us out of this hole.
In Arizona nonprofit scholarship tuition organizations keep less than 5% of their revenues for overhead. Similar results in Florida.
Righton,
Incorrect. According to figures from the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Census Bureau, Nevada's K-12 education spending ranks between 26th and 47th - depending on what is counted and how you do the calculation.
No U.S. Federal government figure puts Nevada at 49th, that I've seen. Interestingly, up to 6 different states can be ranked 49th in the same year. Can you guess how that is possible?
As for throwing money at public education:
In 1959 we spent $430 per pupil.
By 2007 we were spending over $8,000
Adjusting for inflation that is a 165% increase PER PUPIL.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/t...
Give it a rest, Pat!
The Luv Gov says...
"The economic crisis we face cannot be fixed with gimmicks or gadgets or temporary patches",
but if you'd like your teacher to get paid, we'll leave some forms at the DMV, and you can CHOOSE to pay them, by donation, if you can afford to, and choose to do so.
Oh, Lord.
Patrick, why don't you mention that in 1959, spending for education in Nevada was above the national average ($3,100 to 2,700 per pupil)? Now it is below the national average ($8,600 versus $10,700). The cost of education has increased faster than inflation nationwide (you fail to mention that.) and far faster than in Nevada Nevada has gone from above the national average to below. Why isn't that a success story of productivity?
Education, unlike other economic activities, is labor intensive, it is difficult to substitute capital for labor, and you cannot shift jobs overseas.
Turrialba,
Is spending ABOVE the median level some magic number that suddenly makes students learn more? It isn't, a median or average is an artificial and meaningless line that doesn't tell us anything about student performance.
Aren't you worried that we spent some $3,000 per pupil and then jumped up to over $8,000 fifty years later with no results?
Computers today are more powerful than ever before yet they are dirt cheap compared to computers just 10 years ago!!!!
Education is not labor intensive by nature - it is labor intensive because of poor planning and terrible management. CCSD employs 1 adult for every 8 students with only 1 out of every 3 employees being an actual classroom teacher.
Education has become labor intensive because it hasn't been productive or efficient. Despite the computerization of EVERYTHING in the economy, Education is one of the few sectors that is using more labor to produce the same (or less) results. That is embarrasing and proof positive that spending more money isn't the answer.
Gmag,
If you actually care, go grab a slip. Forcing other people to pay more taxes doesn't actually mean you care.
Basically, the governor just told you to put your money where your mouth is.
Patrick:
So now your okay with a social structure predicated on voluntary tax? I'm just wondering where in the history of the world you might have seen such a system achieve success?
Patrick you analysis is flawed. Given that productivity as you measure it for education is below that of the national economy, you fail to consider the contribution to education to overall productivity in the economy as a whole. Further, you assume that cuts in edcuation spending would result in equal or better levels of productivity in the economy than current levels.
If you zero out education would we have witnessed the productivity gains in the economy as a whole of the past half century?
Dr. Green,
Private individuals have a hard time taking care of others because the government takes so much to begin with.
If the government takes money from the private sector to employ 2 guys to dig ditches and fill them in again, what has that done for the economy? We got no new product as a result. Since we used resources to produce nothing we become poorer than had we used those resources to produce something.
Not every government job is necessary for society to function. Many of them simply destroy wealth.
The end result is that despite your desire to help the poor, you make more poverty.
I wish we could just divide the state in thirds. One for the status quo, one for the big government left wing and one for the limited government right wing. We'll call my side the "Freedom for Responsible Nevadans Zone." Let's just see which philosophy works without forcing it on everyone else.
Turribula,
Nevada's economic productivity is actually above average - as measured by GDP growth and incomes. Poverty rates are low too. This has occurred inspite of our below average performance in education.
By zero out, do you mean eliminate? Or maintain?
If spending had been maintained at $3,100 per pupil public education would have been forced to innovate very quickly on how to provide a high quality service at a low cost. Given that Estonia educates students for around $3,000 per year (adjusted for PPP in 2004 dollars) and Estonian students beat Americans in Math and Science (and Nevada being below average even there), I'd say yes, with the right incentives and a properly reformed public education we could make it work - just as the Estonians have done.
Could we cut education expenditures to $3,000 today? No. We have a bureaucratic system that is unresponsive to the needs of the children. I advocate major reforms in education, not massive immediate cuts. I'll go for the long term savings along with education improvement, rather than immediate savings and immediate struggles.
Patrick
You didn't answer the question. How do you innovate when labor in the central input--pay less--That is it.
Let's look at CCSD--where do you want to cut? Show me--$7600 per student this year--show me what your innovation is going to do (not some post Reagan Era rhetoric--show me how you are going to do it for the 309,000 students in CCSD.
HSS,
At our current level of technology there are still market failures which need to be addressed by government. Management of the commons, police services, and courts to settle disputes are essential at the moment. This would require an involuntary tax - albeit the requirement would be significantly less than our current budget.
All other services, luxury services, a voluntary tax would be appropriate. The problem is, the left-wing is generally ungiving compared to conservatives - which may be why they want to force other people to subsidize their need to care for others (since they are unwilling to pay themselves).
Turrialba,
I already addressed that point. Education is labor intensive because it is a centralized bloated bureaucracy that focuses on adults, not students. It does not have to be labor intensive, it can be reformed, it can be efficient, and it can be responsive to the needs of students.
What to cut from CCSD?
Lets start by giving 90% of the CCSD dollars (which is over $11,000 per pupil when you include debt services and capital projects) to the local schools. They turn around and buy their teachers, text books and supplies, what they need. If they need services for professional development or lawn care they put a bid out to the central office or the private sector and THEY choose which one works for them. Let the schools control their transportation, food services, and facilities.
Read this http://npri.org/scholars/patrick-gibbons...
and this for more information: http://npri.org/publications/financing-e...
We also need vouchers and our tax credits. This tax credit program could save us up to $1.3 billion in its first ten years: http://npri.org/publications/choosing-to...
Patrick:
How can you make education less labor instensive? Show me how? Show me how we are going to cut. How over staff is the CCSD administration? Show me the numbers--where are you going to cut?
Is 220 students per administrator too much?
Is an average of 33 clerical, bus drivers, custodial and maintenance workers per school too much?
Is 880 students too few? Show me dude.
Show me how you are going to me the cuts on the budget I gave you. Central admininistration is included in the personnel numbers.
What productivity gains will tax credits produce if you have no taxable income? Who will take on the high cost special ed students or the problem students that crap out on your system? Who will pay for the books? You are making these bold assertions. Show me.
budget of $2.1 billion per year budget or $21 billion (no inflation) and savings of $1.3 over 10 years.
Are the $1.3 billion in savings Net Present Value?
If not, it looks like savings of about 7% over the period.
He makes some good points, but he's lost so much credibility that his words are falling on deaf ears.
Patrick, the last I looked, Nevada was ranked in the bottom 3 when it comes to spending on educational staff (though I think those were 2006 numbers). I COMPLETELY agree that money doesn't solve the problem (see Washington DC), but there might be some correlation between dollars spent on actual instruction and test results/graduation rates, especially since we're also in at the bottom of both of those categories, as well. Again, assuming that more money will solve the problem is foolish, but we do have to be competitive if we want to attract the best from around the country/world.
It sure would be nice to find a way to identify the effective teachers, and compensate them accordingly.
CCSD's total budget is $3.7 billion for the year. The general fund budget is only $2.1 billion.
You could increase the saving from the tax credit program by making it immediate. Andrew Coulson assumed the program would be phased in over 10 years. Otherwise the savings would be more substantial.
Over a 50 year period those savings would be very large.
Think about it. If we had maintained 1959 levels of funding, we could cut every dime in state funding which means we could slash large swaths of state taxes ($1.4 billion worth) and still have room to cut the local property tax by 20%.
Improv,
Nevada only spends about 50 cents out of every dollar on classroom supplies, textbooks, teachers and school staff.
Turb will want you to believe there is nothing to cut, but that is nonsense. Not all government employees are essential to provide high quality service - some have jobs simply because the bureaucracy has grown and they need workers to comply with other bureaucratic rules. We also spend a lot of money on school construction -- the state of Arizona by comparison does not. A more robust charter school program could produce long term savings in debt services as Charter schools don't use bond revenue for school construction.
Turribula,
The answer is much easier than you think.
1) Attach the money to the student
2) Let the student go to any school they want.
3) Give local schools control over the funds they receive
Watch the efficiency take action. The teachers and principals will know exactly what to cut and what to spend money on.
Btw, you don't have a 165% increase in spending without blowing it on useless programs and jobs that do nothing for student achievement.
While you're at it, why don't you gather data on the spending by state and run a regression analysis on spending and student achievement - you'll find no correlation no matter the spending level.
When local schools control more of the budget, resources are used more efficiently and emphasis shifts from funding jobs at the central office to funding results at the local school. The Baltimore Public School system initiated its empowerment program with $165 million in central-office budget cuts, out of which $88 million was redistributed to local schools. Estimates are that by 2010 the district will have cut 489 jobs from the central office and have diverted 80 percent of the district's operating budget to the local schools.
The Hartford Public School District, with just 22,000 students, eliminated 40 central-office positions and reduced central-office expenditures by 20 percent as a result of the empowerment program. Meanwhile, the New York City Department of Education, which serves over one million students, has cut over $230 million from the central-office budget since 2006.
Moving to empowerment has also allowed school districts to protect classroom funds. Oakland Unified School District was forced to make significant cuts to its FY2010 budget because of California's sour economy and the district's declining enrollment. But while the central office budget was cut by 42.7 percent, local school sites saw a manageable revenue decline of just 3.7 percent.
http://npri.org/publications/financing-e...
The Clark County School District also rations school supplies from the central office. Approval for a needed resource to be allocated requires the authorization of up to six different central-office administrators.
In one instance, a district principal sought permission to acquire new computers that had large 22-inch monitors. District regulations, however, prohibited monitors larger than 19 inches. Yet the systems with 22-inch monitors were on sale for less than systems with the 19-inch monitors. Because of the inflexible regulations, the purchase request was initially denied.
In another case, CCSD paid $1.4 million above the lowest bid to remodel a school and an extra $170,000 for landscaping at another school. The central office also rejected a printing job that FedEx Kinkos would have done for $1,800, requiring the school instead to purchase the same service from the central office for $4,000. Although the school district is not required by law to accept the lowest bid, these practices add up and leave fewer dollars for the classroom.
When a central office directs the use of scarce resources, no one knows the real value of the resources being provided. What would benefit a school most -- an assistant principal, a new English teacher or new computers for every classroom? Only the local school, intimately aware of the needs of its students, is in the best position to answer that question.
http://npri.org/publications/financing-e...
"So now your okay with a social structure predicated on voluntary tax? I'm just wondering where in the history of the world you might have seen such a system achieve success?"
Hss46 --
Does any society which victimizes its producers with unpunished theft (taxation) deserve success?
Is society's success measured by how much government debt its theft can accumulate?
Can any society which robs its citizens of their wealth be considered morally just?
Perhaps a clearer picture of the colossal robbery game can be obtained if all the taxes, fees, tarriffs, duties, etc. i.e. costs currently imposed by local, state and federal branches of government was listed and reviewed? Then, where each dollar is specifically spent.
Isn't prohibiting government involvement in schools (institutions utilized in the development of the mind) as equally important as prohibiting government involvement in institutions of worship?
BTW: I am unaware of any restrictions currently imposed upon those advocating social-theft (taxation) which prohibits any individual or entity from voluntarily relinquishing more of their wealth and income to their government without being "told" through taxation.
: {
Turb,
Have you heard of the personal computer? The television? The copy machine? Personal computer printers?
All of these things have been invented in the last 50 years. They all help humans to become more productive and more informed. They've also gotten cheaper over time.
Public education has access to all of these. Yet, they've added more workers over the last 50 years as well.
You cannot argue that education must be labor intensive because it has to be simply because it employs a lot of people today (compared to the student population).
That is absurd and flawed reasoning.
The additional workers, even having access to cheaper more productive capital, has failed to produce results. Education is labor intensive today simply because the primary focus is on jobs for adults
"Today's school finance systems fund programs, employ staff, sustain institutions and provide resources so that district and school administrators can faithfully execute the thousands of laws and regulations that have grown up around public education," noted the flagship report of the nationwide School Finance Redesign Project (SFRP). But this complex patchwork of occasionally conflicting laws incentivizes a system that is "focused on maintaining programs and paying adults, not on searching for the most effective way to educate our children."
the National Working Group on Fund Student Learning, an assembly of several education researchers including professors from Washington, Wisconsin, Vanderbilt, Penn State, Stanford, and UC Berkeley, which reached a consensus that concluded,
"that the connection between resources and learning has been growing weaker, not stronger" and that ""the system itself is the problem"State education finance systems were not designed with student learning in mind""
You don't have to take my word for it:
http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr...
So Patrick how does the PC, TV allow you to have fewer teachers and drive down costs? It means I have a teacher and some technology. If I have a calculator but it doesn't mean I can do math.
You problem is that you are buying into some bogus economic theory of learning that insists that cost be driven downward by some sort of market force. By substituting a PC for a teacher, I can achieve something other than 100 students in a class.
You are using reality to explain some theory instead of using theory to explain reality. You get paid for this?
improveLV
"It sure would be nice to find a way to identify the effective teachers, and compensate them accordingly."
Yes, it would!!! It also would be GREAT to be able to Fire those who are not!!! That is the problem with the system.
Think about the time saving productivity boosting that these devices give teachers.
You can create a test at any time on your pc and print it out. Take the test to the copy machine and print out copies instantly. Grading can be done quickly and efficiently with the computers.
Lessons can be done with the computers as well. There are also excellent lectures on DVD's and on the internet for dozens of subjects. I know when I was a teacher, once and awhile I'd pop in a lecture from a top college professor on a particular subject. Students when take notes and I'd use the time to grade tests, papers etc.
Now why does a PC improve the productivity of a high school kid at McDonalds, but does nothing for a teacher?
Why is education so incapable of using technology to innovate and become more productive? And why were they not able to increase productivity with better capital and more labor?
PS, most countries on the planet including the OECD countries have larger classrooms. Most of them beat us on the PISA. You've got a much harder job of explaining how spending more will produce results when decades of experience has shown it has not.
The world according to NPRI/Patrick Gibbons.
Do you think patrick has an agenda?
Is the Pope Catholic?
YES. And it's ALL BOUGHT AND PAID FOR!
http://www.lvjournalreview.com/npri-watc...
Just make UNLV private. Let them charge $100,000 for a degree to any sucker who thinks it's worth it. College does not come with a job guarantee.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jo...
Teaching has become antiquated! We should just sit our kids down in front of a computer equipped with Google, Wikipedia, and Youtube and they will get the best education possible. Of course, they will be blind, unable to walk, and developed carpal tunnel syndrome by the age of 10 but they can always rely on the government to take care of them with social medical programs. :)
@ Patrick....Wow, where to begin....
1- "Lessons can be done with the computers as well." No way? really? so that is what that black thing on my desk is for! Apparently you haven't been in a class in a while. Ever heard of Parentlink??? Grades, attendence, parent reports have been done by computer for years now. You do realize that computers cost money right? Toner does too. I can't print out crap if we don't have money for toner. You'd be amazed at how long teachers can shake a toner cartidge to keep printing coming.
2- "There are also excellent lectures on DVD's and on the internet for dozens of subjects." Now that's good teaching. Let someone else do it. Why didn't I think of that. Oh ya- I"d be fired.
3- "I know when I was a teacher, once and awhile I'd pop in a lecture from a top college professor on a particular subject. Students when take notes and I'd use the time to grade tests, papers etc." Again- I'd love to see your observation reports. This statement screams out that you're "one of those" teachers who does nothing but sit at their desk all day. We have a saying now- we call teachers like you "on your way out crap". That's not increasing productivity, or improving education- that's being freaking lazy!
3-"Now why does a PC improve the productivity of a high school kid at McDonalds, but does nothing for a teacher?" How is a computer supposed to improve my producivity? Can it write a note to the nurse? Can it correct essays? Can it teach my 6 reading groups or my 8 spelling groups? Oh wait- I bet the computer can hold parent conference for me! Or better yet, handle the discipline when a student stabs another with a pencil?
4- "Why is education so incapable of using technology to innovate and become more productive? And why were they not able to increase productivity with better capital and more labor?" You're delusional. Technology is used daily- we take attendance on the computers (required), our grade books are on computers and uploaded to parentlink (required), our plans are done on computers, we use powerpoints, videos... dictionaries are online (however, since students can only use book dictionaries on the state writing exam it's pretty pointless using the online ones). Most internet sites, blocked.
We'd all love to do more, but with the crap computers we have, that barely run, and take 30-40 minutes to boot up, and freeze every 20 minutes it's pretty hard.
Technology doesn't teach- humans teach. Stare at a scientific calculator for a while and see if you can understand sin and cosine.But sure- go ahead and cut money for technology and tie our hands with what we have, then bash us for not being "innovative" with it.
OMG!
I don't have a TV or VCR or DVD player in my room. I haven't shown a movie in over 4 years- why? Because I freakin do my job. I teach. I grade my papers when I'm supposed to- on my prep- not my teaching time.
No wonder you keep bashing education.
And...
5- Schools do buy their own textbooks and their own supplies. We buy our own pencils, paper, crayons... whatever.
We didn't buy math books last year- because we negotiated as a group- but you could still opt out. What that meant is that if we wanted (read that again... if we- the school- wanted) the district would by us new books if we wanted one of the 2 they were buying. 3 years ago, they did the same for 4th grade NV history books.
THIS SAVED THE SCHOOLS MONEY!!! We got our budget and didn't have to buy books- we could buy- gasp- more computers!
6- CCSD does not ration supplies from a central office. NOPE. Schools get their budget and can ordered what ever the heck they want, from where ever. We can order from office depot if we want. Has been like this for years.
7.- We are responsible for our own staff development. Has also been like this for a while. I actually go around to other schools and teach staff math methods and strategies. FREE! Gasp. We could use our money to pay for someone to come in- or like for next week, we are using the talents from within. Point being- staff development has always been what the schools want it to be.
8- empowerment- Great! But the state still sends you the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY you'd get if you weren't empowerment. It's the amount from the state that causes the problems. The rest is all misconceptions that you and your ilk keep trying to perpetuate.
9- Schools already have control over the teachers they hire and how to distribute them.
10- it would cost a single school more to hire a company to mow their field than it costs the district per school. It would cost a single school more money to hire a tech to fix broken copiers each time they broke, than it costs the district to hire 1 tech to service 30 schools. The same way I charge $50 an hour for private tutoring ($90 if you want HSP exam prep), yet I make nothing close to that per hour to teach 31 students at a time.
You're really out of touch, and it just gets more obvious each time you type.
"Think about it. If we had maintained 1959 levels of funding, we could cut every dime in state funding which means we could slash large swaths of state taxes ($1.4 billion worth) and still have room to cut the local property tax by 20%"
If we had maintained 1959 levels of funding you wouldn't have had a computer to teach your class for you.