Former CCSD school board members try to conceal district's lack of progress

Apparently former CCSD school board members Ruth Johnson and Mary Beth Scow don't want the district's progress or lack of it judged on the basis of the nation's report card, the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Instead, they prefer the No Child Left Behind act's adequate yearly progress (AYP) scoring, which can be—and regularly is—"gamed."

Those AYP results depend on formulas and exceptions that vary from state to state and year to year. For instance, Nevada has moved charter school scores first in, and then out, of the formulae for determining AYP. At the prodding of CCSD, Nevada also pursued and then received permission to use averages of scores over multiple years to achieve AYP. Of the 89 CCSD schools subsequently granted AYP through appeals, 27 percent were approved based on these new averaging allowances that allowed schools to mix in scores achieved under earlier years' more generous standards. These schools would not have made AYP otherwise. Finally, because new schools automatically make AYP, Clark County was able to get a boost by simply opening nine new schools during the 2007-2008 school year.

Similarly, Johnson and Scow want to spin the big CCSD drop in SAT scores as just part of a national drop due to a change in the test. But while national test scores dipped a mere 6 points, Clark County dropped 12 to 14 points in critical reading—depending on which CCSD monitoring report you use. And while the national scores leveled out in 2007, CCSD continued its decline. As of now, Clark County School District has a 13-point deficit from the national average of 502.

The pattern in math is similar. While the rest of the nation dipped five points after the test, CCSD dropped12 points and continued to drop while the rest of the nation leveled off. Clark County now has an 18-point deficit from the national average math score of 515.

Until 2003, Clark County hovered around the national average or scored higher. However, in 2003—the baseline year for the board's embrace of Policy Governance—CCSD scores began to rapidly fall away from the national average.

The now-departed CCSD school board members also drag out the regular fall-back excuse for failed school district performance: blame it on minority and poor families. But there are two problems with that argument. First. CCSD accountability reports show an average 19 percent ELL population since 2003, while—depending on which CCSD report you use—the free-and-reduced-lunch population has dropped from 44 percent to 38 percent since 2003. It did not "skyrocket". Secondly, Florida has solidly demonstrated that genuine reforms—of the kind that CCSD regularly evades—will accomplish massive educational progress. Indeed, NAEP scores for Hispanic free-and-reduced-lunch kids in Florida are at virtually the same level as Nevada's average students!

Our term-limited-out CCSD trustees also plead no responsibility for the continuing overcrowding of schools in the school district. But the school board does have control over school-attendance boundaries, where its new schools are built and whether all seats are utilized before building commences. Currently, Clark County taxpayers are paying to build new schools when more than 35,000 seats are already sitting empty, waiting for students. The board also could foster—rather than block, as it does—charter schools, where private-sector funds, rather than taxpayers, foot the bill for construction or rental costs.

Of course, no Nevada school district's evasion of educational responsibility would be complete without a complaint about per-pupil funding, and the ex-trustees do not disappoint. However, as multiple studies have shown, coming from all quarters of ideological persuasion, there is no correspondence between level of spending and level of school performance. For example, Florida—referenced earlier—made its large increases in performance for a virtual pittance, much less of a per-pupil increase than most states' taxpayers saw.

Finally, Johnson and Scow try to pick nits on the market status of Policy Governance, asserting it is not "commercially sold." In reality, the school district—like other organizations across the country—utilized "purchased" consulting services from Policy Governance guru Dr. John Carver regarding the implementation of his trademarked program. That this petty objection was even offered is an index of the state of board leadership over the last 12 years. It is a red herring to distract the public from the continuing issue of substandard CCSD performance.

Maureen Dowd answers her own question

Unfortunately, she never realizes it:

How could Citigroup be so dumb as to go ahead with plans to get a new $50 million corporate jet, the exclusive Dassault Falcon 7X seating 12, after losing $28.5 billion in the past 15 months and receiving $345 billion in government investments and guarantees?

Well, Citigroup probably bought the plane because it had just received $345 billion in government investments and guarantees. When you've just received $345,000,000,000, what's $50,000,000 among friends? Sadly, less than .015 percent.

In a true free-market system, when businesses are run poorly and lose billions of dollars, they fail. They go away. Their assets are auctioned off to the highest bidder, who will try to do better. If that individual or group is profitable, great. If not, the assets will be auctioned off for someone else to have a go at it, and so on. This continuing cycle ensures an efficient use of resources. And taxpayers aren't on the hook for any of it.

This process was once called creative destruction. But when the government stops that process ... well, jets get purchased with taxpayer dollars.

Wonder if Ms. Dowd opposes other cases of wasteful spending.

She continues:

[CNBC Anchor Maria] Bartiromo also asked [former Merrill Lynch chief executive John] Thain to explain, when jobs and salaries were being cut at his firm, how he could justify spending $1 million to renovate his office. As The Daily Beast and CNBC reported, big-ticket items included curtains for $28,000, a pair of chairs for $87,000, fabric for a "Roman Shade" for $11,000, Regency chairs for $24,000, six wall sconces for $2,700, a $13,000 chandelier in the private dining room and six dining chairs for $37,000, a "custom coffee table" for $16,000, an antique commode "on legs" for $35,000, and a $1,400 "parchment waste can."

Hmmm, spending thousands of dollars on office furniture. Where have we heard about that before?

One wonders whether Ms. Dowd's recommendation for excessive spenders on office furniture would fly in Nevada:

Bring on the shackles. Let the show trials begin.

Parlez-Vous Français, Nevada?

Nevada's unemployment rate has now reached 9.1 percent. Nevada's unemployment rate is now higher than that of France, a country known for stupid economic policies like the 35-hour work week and unemployment benefits so generous that it makes almost no sense to ever go find a new job again. France still has serious unemployment problems—those 25 and under face unemployment rates that exceed 20 percent while youthful immigrants face unemployment that reaches upwards of 50 percent—but overall unemployment in France is now 7.9 percent.

So what is Nevada's plan to fix unemployment? If the rumors are true, our policy leaders don't seem to care about those without a job.

The rumors up at the capitol suggest there is talk of tripling the state's Modified Business Tax (MBT), a tax on the total payroll of each company in the state. That means the tax would jump to over 1.8 percent of total payroll for non-financial companies. There is also some serious talk in other circles of adding a corporate income tax—including a gross receipts tax that takes money away from companies regardless of their ability to make a profit.

Nothing says "let's screw the unemployed" like discouraging companies from moving here and creating jobs while also punishing companies already here. The MBT is a cruel and regressive tax—it punishes companies for every person they hire and for every dollar extra they pay each employee.

If you want to have high unemployment and low wages, raising this tax is a sure-fire way to reach that goal.

A gross receipts tax is just as cruel to employees, but this tax hurts "mom and pop" shops and grocery stores the most.

It is simply unbelievable that the people up in Carson City would consider higher taxes a solution to the state's modest revenue declines. After all, a decrease of 0.9 percent over the last budget's total is not a crisis.

But what is our leaders' goal now that this state is worse off than France? Descend into complete emulation of California?

Is going to college the best choice for students?

For some, certainly. For others, no.

"More people need to realize that you don't have to get a four-year degree to be successful," says Steven Eilers, who went through an automotive program and then continued his education by getting a paying job as an apprentice in a car-repair center. He's making good money, and he has zero student-loan debt.

This matters to Nevada, because as you may have noticed, higher education funding and its purpose have become topics of considerable debate.

Final note:

Self-serving college presidents and politicians should drop the scam. Higher enrollments and government loan programs may be good for them, but they are making lots of our kids miserable and poor. For many, the good life can be lived without college.

Looks like Gov. Gibbons has been reading NPRI

From the Las Vegas Sun:

Gibbons responded, "The Board of Regents makes the decisions. And when I see they're spending $16,000 on a desk, I wonder where they're spending money on. I don't control their budget."

NPRI wasn't the only one to make note of UNLV President David Ashley's expensive desk, but it is nice to see someone in elected office talking about waste as well.

Scientists Not So Sure 'Doomsday Machine' Won't Destroy World

Awesome.

But at least we won't have to worry about all the calls for new taxes.

(h/t Hotair)

Charter schools in Nevada need more control

Nevada's charter school situation is embarrassingly poor. We have about 420,000 students in the public school system and yet fewer than 30 charter schools.

What, exactly, is a charter school? Basically it's a normal public school where tuition is free for all students and virtually whoever applies must be accepted. (Usually, if there are too many applications, a lottery is used.) Unlike traditional public schools, however, charter schools are free from much of the usual bureaucratic red tape. The idea is that they are free to be creative and innovative in the ways they teach students.

Put simply, there are about a million different ways to teach students, and charter schools offer many alternatives to the one-size-fits-all dogmas of the usual government school.

Unfortunately, charter schools in Nevada are hamstrung by the fact that school districts—and unions—don't really want them to exist. Even the Departments of Education at the state's two public universities—the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and the University of Nevada, Reno—don't dare sponsor charters, even though that would give them a chance to put their ideas to a real-world empirical test.

Furthermore, charter schools in Nevada are still regulated by the state's one-size-fits-all central bureaucracy and must also accept the contracts negotiated between the school district and the school-district unions.

Recently the teacher union in Massachusetts, unlike the one in Nevada, decided to put its money where its mouth is. It lobbied to create "pilot schools"—charter schools under union control. Researchers at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that union-controlled pilot schools in Massachusetts (which have special rules that allow them to deny students admission, unlike charter schools) typically perform no better than the traditionally run public schools. But Massachusetts' normal charter schools—which are free to choose how they hire, reward or fire teachers—outperform both the traditional public schools and the union-controlled pilot schools.

Charter schools should be part of the education reform equation in Nevada. Quite simply, they work. To improve Nevada's charter school program, we not only need a regulatory board supervising charter schools that operates independent of the school districts and the Department of Education, but we also need to allow charter school administrators to hire, fire and reward as they see fit.

Evidence continues to mount that charter schools outperform. But if the union disagrees, let's experiment by duplicating both the charter and pilot-schools programs of Massachusetts.

Somehow, we don't expect the unions will want to undergo a real-world test.

You were saying, Mr. Gore?

Why does it seem like every time the global warming alarmists plan an event so they can howl about our pending doom, it gets canceled because of abnormally cold weather?

The latest, via Drudge.

Nevada education: Spending more, learning less

Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Jim Rogers gave a speech on Friday night in which he bemoaned Gov. Gibbons’ cuts to higher education spending and sarcastically suggested Nevada should start telling prospective students:

"Move to Nevada-Our education system is in such good shape that we will guarantee your child will graduate from eighth grade. We are sorry, but we are unable to guarantee that your child will be able to read or write or add and subtract."

Rogers actually has a good point. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 63 percent of Nevada’s eighth graders can read at grade level, down from 70 percent 10 years ago. This drop has occurred even as Nevada has increased per-pupil public education funding from $5,757 to $7,344 (not including capital outlays, debt payment and teacher pensions) over that same time period. In addition, NAEP reading scores indicate that 43 percent of Nevada's fourth-grade students are functionally illiterate-this despite the fact more than $40,000 has been spent on each student's education to that point.

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/viewresults.asp.

With the state spending $4-5 billion dollars on education each biennium, it's difficult to believe that Mr. Rogers, or anyone for that matter, has really been combing through the budget to cut waste or eliminate inefficiencies-especially since there is absolutely no incentive for anyone in government to do so.

Nor should we expect the quality of our education system to suddenly improve once we give it an "adequate" amount of money-whatever that number might be. The truth is that we've tried that approach for 40 years now: Nevada has more than tripled per-pupil spending since 1960, adjusting for inflation.

Clearly, increasing spending is not the answer. Nevada needs meaningful reforms.

Got despotism?

The City of Las Vegas’ redevelopment plan is being challenged by Culinary Local 226 in the upcoming June election. Culinary has secured enough signatures to place two initiatives on the ballot that would (1) require voter approval for individual lease-purchase agreements and (2) repeal the city’s current redevelopment plan.

The City has proposed to issue general obligation bonds to finance, among other things, a new $267 million city hall. The project would burden local taxpayers with a significant amount of debt at a time when they can least afford it.

In response to Culinary’s actions, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman has audaciously declared, “The public should know, no matter what happens with the referendum, we're going to go ahead with these projects.” In essence, Goodman is saying that ‘democracy is not valid here’ and that he will force city residents to build him a new palace whether they like it or not. Goodman contends that the taxpayer-funded development projects he has envisioned cannot be stopped because the city has entered into binding agreements on those projects that it must honor.

However, his contention is undermined by the fact that he freely admits that the contract for the new city hall “may not be specifically in writing, but these people are proceeding as though there is a contractual agreement with the city.” Hence, there is no contract.

In typical fashion, city officials are hiding behind the state’s redevelopment laws to protect acts that in principle constitute tyranny and despotism. Normally, when the City Council issues large amounts of debt through a general obligation bond, the public has the right to vote on it. When it does so under the guise of a redevelopment agency, however, democracy is suspended and Council members are allowed to impose new debt onto taxpayers in order to fund whatever pet project they desire.

Often, city officials can use a redevelopment agency to funnel taxpayer money directly to their privileged developer friends as an “incentive” (wink-wink) to undertake the project. In essence, redevelopment agencies are a tool used to tax private families in order to enrich the feudal lords.

Despotism is a way of life once a city forms a redevelopment agency in Nevada. The actions of Mayor Goodman and his cohorts on the City Council are prima facie evidence of this fact.

Reform of Nevada’s redevelopment laws is now long overdue. The state legislature can no longer regard these abuses with ambivalence. Nevadans deserve protection from their local officials’ despotic behavior.

Las Vegas union fights for fiscal responsibility

No joke.

Welcome to the club. Hope you’ll stick around and support other government levels’ attempts to make do with what they have.

What will they try and tax next?

In response to the over-hyped budget shortfall, State Sen. Bob Coffin has come up with an "innovative" proposal to raise taxes.

The Las Vegas Sun reports:

State Sen. Bob Coffin said Tuesday he would be willing to grant a hearing on proposals to legalize and regulate prostitution in Las Vegas and other urban areas of the state where it's illegal.

Why?

"I'd be happy to listen to arguments for legalization anytime," Coffin said. "In the meantime, I know we have to get some money from the world's oldest profession."

It doesn't matter if you're for or against legalized prostitution; the philosophy of legalizing something just to tax it is backwards.

If something should be legal, it should be allowed on its merits. If something shouldn't be legal, collecting tax revenue on it doesn't make it something worth legalizing.

Sen. Coffin's willingness to think outside the box when it comes to addressing our budget challenges is worthy of some appreciation. Too bad his creative efforts are directed toward creating new taxes rather than identifying ways to make government more efficient and save taxpayer dollars.

Why higher education isn't as bad off as they want you to believe

Week after week, Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Jim Rogers has been telling us how important higher education is, and how he needs more money to fund the system "properly." Ultimately, what he got for his efforts was a more than 30 percent reduction in appropriations from Gov. Gibbons' proposed budget. Needless to say, the chancellor is not happy.

But is NSHE really as bad off as some would have us believe?

After all, government isn't the only source of funding for our universities. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for example, received a $37 million donation from the Greenspun family. But sadly, the donation was used to help fund a palatial, $93 million campus building called Greenspun Hall, which cost roughly $780 per square foot.

Having become accustomed to blowing money on these kinds of costly goodies, it's no wonder those who run our higher education system are addicted to extravagant spending levels.

As for the alleged 52 percent budget cuts to UNLV and UNR, it is really a 50 percent cut in general fund appropriations, not a 50 percent cut in the budget. Remember, the general fund is just one portion of UNLV and UNR's operating budget.

Former State Sen. Bob Beers has a post over at Nevada Taxpayer Guide that outlines state appropriations to higher education. We have recreated his chart below, adding in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 along with the percentage increases in appropriations between each year (the figures are not adjusted for inflation).

Nevada System of Higher Education Appropriations 2002-2011
Year	Total Appropriations	% Increase	General Fund Appropriations	% Increase
2002	$495,831,297		$346,845,022
2003	$530,804,136	7.05%	$370,593,608	6.85%
2004	$623,544,443	17.47%	$482,655,305	30.24%
2005	$660,235,771	5.88%	$506,746,590	4.99%
2006	$734,687,365	11.28%	$557,374,664	9.99%
2007	$792,195,555	7.83%	$591,814,068	6.18%
2008	$837,905,664	5.77%	$639,293,540	8.02%
2009	$912,423,319	8.89%	$677,091,932	5.91%
2010	$638,402,117	-30.03%	$424,311,898	-37.33%
2011	$648,169,309	1.53%	$419,562,022	-1.12%

*Source: Nevadaspending.com

Clearly, NSHE has enjoyed a few generous spending increases in appropriations over the years—the bulk of which have been considerably higher than inflation.

Even with the new budget cuts, NSHE will still have $1.28 billion to spend over the next biennium, 25 percent more than it had during the 2001-03 biennium. Adjust for inflation, and there is virtually no difference between the 2010-11 and the 2001-03 appropriations for higher education.

The Nevada System of Higher Education does face tough choices. It must learn how to prioritize spending, eliminate waste, use technology to lower costs, and get back to basics—i.e. actually educating students, not just providing jobs to Ph.D.s.

Dissecting Budget Numbers

Many people were no doubt surprised when Gov. Gibbons, in his State of the State address, proposed spending $17.3 billion for the 2009-2011 budget, as the most commonly heard predictions put the expected biennial budget in the neighborhood of $6 billion. The confusion stems from a common misunderstanding that the "general fund" is the same thing as "the budget." In reality, the general fund makes up only about 35 percent of the total budget. The Governor's proposed general fund appropriations actually total $6.17 billion, $340 million higher than projected general fund revenues for the 2007-2009 biennium.

When one looks at the entire budget, the governor is actually proposing to spend only $900 million less than he proposed back in 2007. The 2009-2011 budget will only be 0.9 percent smaller than the estimated total revenue collections for the entire 2007-2009 biennium (see page 7 of the executive budget). So the conventional wisdom that we're "cutting to the bone" remains quite wrong.

And what of this alleged $2.3 billion shortfall? That number is dubious, as NPRI has pointed out repeatedly. Basically, state government took the number for 2007 general fund appropriations and added 20 percent so that it could maintain its current services inefficiencies. Imagine that. As the cost of doing business goes down each year for the rest of the world, thanks to new technology, cheaper goods and higher productivity, government assumes it must increase spending by 10 percent annually just to "maintain services." Does that suggest a culture of some guaranteed, recalcitrant inefficiency or what?

By all measures, Nevada's state government is doing quite well in this economic climate - especially in relation to Nevada's business community. Revenues and expenditures today are lower than expected, but they are not significantly lower than revenue collections or expenditures in the previous budget. For example, total State of Nevada revenue collection increased from $15.8 billion in 2005-2007 to $17.5 billion in 2007-2009, a 10.47 percent increase. Compare the state's situation to that of gaming, Nevada's largest industry, which saw gross revenues decline 9.42 percent at the tables and 7.88 percent at slot machines between December 2007 and November 2008. In fact, net revenues for gaming are down more than 50 percent since 2007.

Even with the recession likely to continue through 2009 and 2010, Nevada government faces projected revenues that are 9.1 percent higher than just two years ago. Most businesses in Nevada would treat that as good news, but many government officials and state workers are acting as if Nevada is entering a new Stone Age.

Below, based on available data, is Nevada's budget outlook. (These figures are not adjusted for inflation, although we note that we are currently experiencing a deflationary period. Budget amounts for 2005-2007 are in 2007 dollar values, while 2007-2009 to 2009-2011 budget amounts are in 2008 dollar values.) Any asterisk(*), below, indicates projections. The 2007-2009 general fund assumes approximately $320 million in additional spending thanks to a surplus in 2005-2007.

Nevada's General Fund
	2005-2007	2007-2009*	2009-2011*
Expenditures	$5.88 billion	$6.15 billion	$6.17 billion
Revenue	$6.19 billion	$5.83 billion	$6.17 billion

Nevada's General Fund
	2005-2007	2007-2009*	2009-2011*
% Change Expenditure	-	4.59%	0.33%
% Change Revenue	14.28%	-5.81%	5.83%

General Fund
FY	% Growth
1996	7.1%
1997	4.7%
1998	4.4%
1999	8.0%
2000	7.9%
2001	5.3%
2002	1.0%
2003	4.2%
2004	31.7%
2005	14.3%
2006	11.9%
2007	2.8%
2008	-2.9%
2009	-9.1%
2010	8.2%
2011	3.3%

Governor's Proposed Budget
	2005-2007	2007-2009	2009-2011*
Expenditures	$15.85 billion	$18.2 billion	$17.3 billion
Revenues	$16.1 billion	$17.5 billion	$17.3 billion

Total Budget
	Expenditures	% Change
FY 2008	$9.18 billion	11.14%
FY 2007	$8.26 billion	4.82%
FY 2006	$7.88 billion	-

* 2007-2009 budget and revenue amounts are projections. 2009-2011 budget revenue and expenditure amounts are from the proposed 2009 Executive Budget. Note: The Governor's 2009 Executive Budget estimates that the total revenue for FY 2009 will be $9.42 billion. However, the governor's actual FY 2008 expenditures and projected FY 2009 revenues add up to $18.6 billion, not the $17.5 billion in total revenue (page 7) stated in his budget.

If Nevada's business community can survive this economic downturn, cut costs and increase efficiency despite having less money than the previous year, why can't Nevada's government increase efficiency and cut costs as it receives more money than the previous year?

The same results, twice the cost

The Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN) has proposed covering Nevada's budget shortfall by raising $1.2 billion in new taxes per year (or $2.4 billion in new taxes per biennium). One of the assertions PLAN makes to justify the tax hikes is that the money is needed to spend on Nevada's public education system.

Undoubtedly, Nevada's education system needs improving. But it's extremely unlikely that spending even more money on our current approach to educating children will lead to any real improvement. In fact, some would point out, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a common definition of insanity.

The National Center for Education Statistics reports that national spending per pupil between 1960 and 2005 increased by 247 percent, and that is after adjusting for inflation. Yet no one would claim that student achievement has improved by that amount during that same period.

In fact, the National Assessment of Educational Progress—also known as the Nation's Report Card—shows pretty flat results across the board for reading and mathematics from 1971 through 2004 (the latest available data):

* Significantly different from 2004.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years, 1971–2004 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.

* Significantly different from 2004.
NOTE: Dashed lines represent extrapolated data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years, 1973–2004 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

The reading exam shows virtually no gains in over 30 years. While mathematics has seen some improvements, especially on the fourth-grade NAEP exam, 17-year-olds have seen virtually no improvement in either category since 1971. This suggests that improvements in early education have worn off by the time students enter high school.

Over that same time period (1971-2004), inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending increased 111 percent. Even doubling per-pupil funding has yielded only less-than-modest improvement in student test scores, especially in later years.

Needed reforms include merit pay for teachers, expanded parental choice programs, more charter schools, real consequences for failing schools, the termination of social promotion, and real tests to track student achievement and teacher effectiveness. Such reforms have proven to work in Florida, and are a far superior alternative to government-union efforts to make Nevada spending start approaching the additional $4.1 billion per year required to rank us first in the nation in per-pupil spending.

NPRI on TV–again

Tonight. After the State of the State address. On Las Vegas ONE, Cox Cable Channel 19.

Watch NPRI's peerless spokesman, Andy Matthews, give his instantaneous reaction to Gov. Gibbons' State of the State address. The Governor speaks at 6 p.m., and Andy will join other distinguished panelists on air afterward. It should be good, so don't miss it.

And Andy's barely going to have time to get the make-up off, because he'll be on Fox 5 tomorrow morning off and on between 7:00 and 9:00. He'll provide free-market analysis on several issues affecting our state.

And speaking of NPRI on TV, check out KVBC's report on our first Education Policy Summit. Thanks to everyone who attended and helped make it a smashing success.

If you're interested in some of the information presented at the Summit, you can find it here. Make sure you check out the study presented by Andrew Coulson of the CATO Institute, which demonstrates how Nevada could save up $1.3 billion over 10 years by implementing a parental school choice and tax credit plan.

Teaching Content is Teaching Reading

According to the Nation's Report Card, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 43 percent of Nevada's fourth-grade students can't read at grade level . And that is after we've spent over $40,000 educating each of them. Obviously, improving reading is important: Students who fail to learn how to read are more likely to end up as high school dropouts—with an increased likelihood of a lower living standard and all the problems associated with poverty.

Nationally, the average first-grade student devotes as much as 62 percent of his or her time to language arts. By the third grade, students are spending as much as 47 percent of their time in language arts. Nevada students are likely no exception.

So, is there a better way?

Professor Daniel Willingham, a psychologist at the University of Virginia, thinks so. To improve reading, we need to improve reading comprehension, but to do so, we need to improve the student's general knowledge—meaning more civics, more geography, more science, history, arts, and music ... and less emphasis on reading strategies. An interesting idea.

Professor Willingham has a compelling 10-minute video presentation, "Teaching Content is Teaching Reading," on YouTube. We think you'll find it interesting.

NPRI on TV; Update: Video added

Tonight. 5:30. Las Vegas ONE, Cox Cable Channel 19.

Watch NPRI's fearless spokesman, Andy Matthews, on Face-to-Face with Jon Ralston.

Andy takes on PLAN and its plan to hike your taxes, and also promotes NPRI's Recommendations for Cost-Cutting and Reform—all while making sure his hair stays perfect.

If you miss the show at 5:30, it also airs at 6:30 p.m., 8 p.m., 10 p.m. and 3 a.m. And since you probably can't get enough of Andy, we'll post a link to the video of the show tomorrow.

Update: Well we wanted to post the video of Andy on Face-to-Face, but I couldn't find it on the Las Vegas ONE website. If someone knows where the video is, leave a note in the comments and I'll have it up shortly.

Update: Thanks to Patrick, the video has been found. For your viewing pleasure you can find it here.

$150 million less in revenue=34% cut for Nevada??

Earlier this summer, reports and news articles from across Nevada told us that the state had already "cut to the bone" and that nothing more could be cut. More cuts would be devastating and would roll back our services to Stone Age levels.

Back then, the state was looking at 14 percent cuts. But now that State Controller Kim Wallin's "Report to the Citizens" has come out, there's some real cause for head-scratching.

In Fiscal Year 2007, Nevada took in $7.39 billion in revenue, according to Wallin's report. In Fiscal Year 2008 (the fiscal year that ended in June 2008) revenue was $7.26 billion—a "devastating" 1.77 percent drop.

The general fund—which is like a bank account from which the state withdraws revenue—is estimated to collect only 2 percent less for this biennium (FY 2007-2009) than it appropriated (spent) in the last biennium (FY 2005-2007)—and that is after adjusting for inflation.

Allegedly, state government is facing "34 percent" cuts—although no one in the government has yet dared, for the last month, to explain how they get to that figure, despite multiple requests from NPRI. Clearly, however, general fund revenues are nowhere near any such plunge.

In fact, it looks as though the general fund for the next biennium will collect just $150 million less than in the current biennium—about a 2.7 percent decrease.

Times must be really tough for Nevada's bureaucrats, who—courtesy of financially drunken lawmakers—were expecting millions more in their budgets but now have to deal with (gasp) a little over 2 percent less than they spent last time around!

Students, scholarhips, and saving tax dollars (in Florida)

One of Florida's best and most effective parental choice programs has been Step Up for Students, a corporate tuition scholarship program for low-income children.

The corporate tuition scholarship allows corporations in Florida to make tax-deductible contributions to organizations that provide scholarships to low-income children to attend private schools or out-of-district public schools. Corporations get a dollar-for-dollar tax credit (up to 75 percent of their tax liability to the state, up to $5 million) when they donate to a scholarship tuition organization. The total sum of tax credits that can be offered was capped at $88 million last year but will now rise to $118 million.

Low-income students -- meaning students who qualify for free and reduced lunches -- qualified for $3,500 scholarships to attend private schools or $500 scholarships to attend out-of-district public schools.

This year the scholarship has allowed 23,000 low-income children to receive a better education. Minority students have been the biggest beneficiaries of this parental-choice program: about 40 percent of the students are African Americans, 25 percent Hispanic, 25 percent white and about 10 percent Asian or other. On top of helping low-income students receive educational opportunities they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford, the tax credit saved the state an estimated $1.49 for every $1 lost from the tax credit. This means the state may have saved as much as $42 million through the program this year.

Florida isn't the only state with a tax credit program. Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island are allowing corporations and/or individuals to donate millions of dollars each year to help low-income children and/or children with disabilities and foster care children attend schools of their choice.

Nevada could create a similar program using the Modified Business Tax (MBT), gaming, room or other taxes as a source of funds. Were the state to use just 50 percent of the MBT (about $125 million) to fund a tuition tax-credit scholarship program, we could send over 17,000 low-income students to private schools on $7,000-scholarships -- or over 41,000 on $3,500-scholarships similar to Florida's.

Parental choice is a diverse movement, with support from all races and all parties, that is growing nationwide. It is time for Nevada to join the reform movement and upgrade to the 21st Century by providing better educational opportunities for our children.

Pay attention to those facts behind the stats

The big-spending crowd in Nevada continues to base its arguments on the assumption that the way to measure government efficiency is to focus on inputs—how many dollars we channel into government.

But how much we fund government isn't a performance measure. After all, government is simply the price we pay for being largely uncivilized. If we were civilized, peaceful and could get along without a mediator or referee, we'd need no government. So if we see less government intrusion into our lives (and our wallets), that would reflect well on us. It could mean we are at least civilized enough not to need more government control.

But take a look at the Las Vegas Sun's recent article lamenting government spending rankings.

The Sun keeps going back to the meaningless statistic that Nevada ranks 49th for residential taxpayer burden as a percentage of income. But that statistic is simply based on a particular interpretation of the fact that tourists pay a lot of taxes in this state, coupled with the fact that Nevada's per-capita income (collective income averaged over all residents) is high. It says nothing about whether government revenues or expenditures are appropriate.

In fact, Nevada ranks 25th in terms of state and local revenue collection per capita. Alaska, which ranks first in the nation for government spending per capita—spending $17,000 more per person than the second-place state—ranks 50th in terms of residential tax burden as a percentage of personal income.

So which of Nevada's rankings in the Sun article should we applaud, and which should we ignore?

Applaud:

• 14th-highest median household income, according to the American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau. The Tax Foundation ranks us seventh for personal income per capita).
• 14th-lowest poverty rate (10.7 percent, compared to the national average of 13 percent).
• 20th-lowest childhood poverty rate in the country (15.3 percent, compared to a national average of 18 percent).
• 14th-lowest infant mortality rate (5.71 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared with 6.81 for the national average).
  

Here is one to really think about:

• 41st-highest for the number of professional and doctoral degrees awarded, and 44th for the percentage of people who complete a bachelor's degree.
  

This is great: Nevada can have low poverty rates and relatively high incomes without its residents having to get a college degree or an advanced degree. This suggests that people in Nevada have a better chance of getting ahead in life regardless of their ability to afford a college degree or not.

What we should ignore:

• Anything about our spending and revenue rankings. Nevada ranks anywhere from 17th to 49th, depending on what statistic you focus on.
• 46th in teacher-to-pupil ratio. There is little to no evidence that suggests small classroom sizes significantly increase student achievement. Nevada should focus on recruiting and retaining effective teachers instead.
• Rankings regarding personal choices like smoking and drinking. The government shouldn't be involved in regulating people's personal lives. Rankings regarding health in this state are negatively influenced by these personal choices, but this does not suggest our health care is poor, just that free people sometimes make personal choices that others would deem poor.
  

What we should worry about:

• Crime. Nevada does have a high crime rate. Will increasing government spending suddenly decrease crime? Not if the tax increases result in people losing their jobs or earning less income. Crime is driven by desperation, and too much government interference is only likely to intensify that desperation.
• The high school dropout rate. Forty-three percent of Nevada's fourth graders cannot read at grade level. The longer these students go without learning how to read, the more likely they are to end up as high school dropouts. We can improve this by implementing serious reform—more government spending on education will have little to no effect on student achievement.
  

So, big spenders: If Nevadans are wealthier on average and poverty rates are lower than average, why on earth do we need bigger government? Sounds like we're doing just fine without it.

You gotta spend money to waste money

Las Vegas CityLife recently printed an article on how to produce $1 billion in revenue for the state. Most of it would result from legalizing certain industries like prostitution, online gambling, marijuana and gay marriage. But what kind of philosophy justifies legalizing something just for the sake of taxing it? Something should be legal if it expands the bounds of non-violent human cooperation, not because it allows policymakers to blow more money without any accountability. But we digress.

CityLife does offer one very interesting idea: terminate the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and sweep its $224 million fund to other portions of the government, then sell off the convention center to the highest bidder (read: privatize). It's interesting to see a left-wing publication like CityLife champion this sweeping reform. Of course, NPRI has recently looked into questionable LVCVA financial practices, and has posted a report on its findings.

There is one "reform" that the CityLife article suggests could generate tons of revenue, but it seems very pie-in-the-sky-ish. The article suggests a $20 billion to $40 billion investment in green-energy industries might come to Nevada (a huge sum of money), which a greenie claims will generate as many as 9,000 new jobs. That's about $4.4 million for each job created – pretty expensive.

And what about Nevada's tax-revenue take? The article suggests we could collect the modified business tax (a payroll tax) on all the new green-energy employees. Let's over-optimistically assume the average green-energy job in Nevada will pay $100,000 a year (meaning Nevada spends a whole bunch of money to attract new rich people into town, not providing jobs for existing residents). That's $900 million in payroll that is taxed at 0.63 percent – meaning the state, after all the hoopla, will collect an underwhelming $5.6 million a year.

The CityLife headline over its piece assures us that, "It's Not a Fantasy."

Really?

Goal: Actually educate children

The State of Nevada Controller's Office released its "Report to the Citizens" on Tuesday, and beyond the obvious (Nevada spent more money in FY2008 than in FY2007 despite the recession), what are most interesting are the "Performance Measures" Controller Kim Wallin reports.

One in particular is alarming (yet so amusing) – a goal to increase per-pupil spending to $9,424. That's an arbitrary number that would put Nevada's current per-pupil spending figure (i.e., excluding capital outlays, debt payment and teacher pensions!) at 20^th in the country.

Alarmingly, how much we spend on students is listed as a "Performance Measure" for the state, which is nonsensical. Is the goal simply to spend more money with no accountability for how it is spent? After all, even if Nevada were ranked No. 1 in per-pupil spending, student achievement wouldn't see any significant gains.

Instead of just arbitrarily increasing spending, shouldn't the actual performance measured be how well we increase the number of students who can read? After all, 43 percent of Nevada's fourth-grade students are functionally illiterate, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

But no, they just want to increase per-pupil spending $2,300 more – actual education performance be damned.

The State of Nevada reports spending $7,135 per pupil (up from $6,665 in FY2007), but this is a far cry from what the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Education claim Nevada spends. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that Nevada's spending per pupil was $7,345 (Figure 4, pg xxii) in FY2006. The U.S. Department of Education claims Nevada's spending per pupil was $6,804 in FY2005.

Unless Nevada decreased education funding in FY 2007 – highly unlikely – the State of Nevada is likely underreporting what it actually spends. But even so, both the Census Bureau and the federal Department of Education recognize that "current per-pupil expenditures" excludes capital outlays, debt payment and teacher pensions.

When including capital outlays and debt payment, Nevada's FY2006 per-pupil spending came to $9,738 (more than $10,200 in 2008 dollar values). Looks like we already met our spending "Performance Measure."

Now if we only had some "Performance Measures" that reflected the schools' real job: educating the children.

Parents want choice

The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice recently conducted a survey in Oregon along with the Cascade Policy Institute, asking parents how they would prefer to see their children educated. The survey found that almost nine out of 10 would prefer something other than a traditional public school.

The Friedman Foundation asked: "If it was your decision and you could select any type of school, what type of school would you select in order to obtain the best education for your child?"

The results:

• 44 percent selected private schools
• 24 percent selected charter schools
• 14 percent selected home schooling
• 13 percent selected regular public schools
• 5 percent selected virtual schools

The Friedman Foundation conducted a similar study with NPRI just last year, and found Nevadans have similar feelings about traditional public education:

• 48 percent selected private schools
• 23 percent selected charter schools
• 15 percent selected home schooling
• 11 percent selected regular public schools
• 3 percent selected virtual schools

That roughly nine out of 10 parents in each state would prefer educational options other than a traditional public school is telling. In fact, on the Nevada survey, 14 percent of respondents rated the state's public education system "poor," while 39 percent rated it "fair." A combined total of just 28 percent rated it "good" or "excellent."

Clearly, Nevada needs education reform, and parental choice appears to be a popular way to go.

Mythbusting economies of scale

Dr. Elliot Parker, an economist at the University of Nevada, Reno, has written a memo (in addition to two newspaper columns) to Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Jim Rogers on Nevada's budget, giving reasons why Nevada needs to raise taxes. NPRI has been researching the validity of his claims, and we have already made several counterpoints.

One of Dr. Parker's central claims revolves around the size of Nevada's bureaucracy, which he believes is unusually small, possibly due to under-funding. He claims that Nevada ranks 50th among the states in terms of number of state employees as a percentage of total population, basing his calculations on data from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 451.

Dr. Parker believes that "economies of scale" suggest that small states like Nevada should have larger bureaucracies as a percentage of their population, while large states, like California, should have small bureaucracies as a percentage of their population. Economies of scale would indeed suggest this, if state governments worked under the same sort of incentives that private enterprises do. However, this is an assumption of magnificent proportions – governments have little incentive to operate efficiently, meaning they are unlikely to be able to take advantage of economies of scale.

Doing some of our own research on this issue, this is what we found:

• Nevada's number of state and local government employees as a percentage of state population ranks 50th as Dr. Parker states.

• The number of local government workers as a percentage of state population ranks 46th.

• The number of state government workers as a percentage of state population ranks 49th.

• The total size of Nevada government ranks 37th.

• The size of Nevada's state government ranks 39th.

• The total size of Nevada's local governments ranks 36th.

• Nevada's total population in 2005 ranked 35th, meaning it is far from being the smallest state in the union.

If governments were subjected to the same market pressures that keep private enterprise efficient and productive (a very big assumption) then Nevada's bureaucracy may actually be undersized. Then again, it could simply be that government workers in Nevada are highly paid (we rank 16th in state employee pay and 6th in local government employee pay). Or it could be the case that Nevada's employees are more efficient and competent than those of other states – both of which would indicate that Nevada has no need to hire more employees.

But what is interesting is the company Nevada keeps on each list.

When looking at "state government employees as a percentage of population," Nevada is surrounded by some fairly large states (populations are in the thousands).

State	State Gov %	Rank	Population	Rank
Massachusetts	1.11%	40	6,433	13
Pennsylvania	1.11%	41	12,405	6
Texas	1.07%	42	22,928	2
Ohio	1.07%	43	11,470	7
Wisconsin	1.06%	44	5,527	20
New York	0.97%	45	19,315	3
Arizona	0.97%	46	5,953	17
Illinois	0.92%	47	12,765	5
California	0.91%	48	36,154	1
Nevada	0.90%	49	2,412	35
Florida	0.82%	50	17,768	4

On its face, this suggests that more populous states will have smaller state bureaucracies as a percentage of their population. Nevada appears, for whatever reason, to be an anomaly.

But looking at local governments yields something different:

State	Local Gov %	Rank	Population	Rank
Arizona	3.07%	40	5,953	17
Maryland	2.96%	41	5,590	19
Oregon	2.94%	42	3,639	27
West Virginia	2.92%	43	1,814	37
Pennsylvania	2.87%	44	12,405	6
Utah	2.69%	45	2,490	34
Nevada	2.66%	46	2,412	35
Washington	2.64%	47	6,292	14
Rhode Island	2.56%	48	1,074	43
Deleware	2.39%	49	842	45
Hawaii	0.82%	50	1,273	42

Interestingly, less populated states tend to have smaller local governments as a percentage of their populations.

This might suggest that larger states provide more services at the local level or that small states have more efficient local governments than larger states. This might also suggest that Nevada's low ranking for total state employees as a percentage of the state population actually means Nevada's government is more efficient than those of most other states – which would be a good thing.

Finally, a simple regression analysis of each category – state and local employment, local employment, and state employment as a percentage of the population – yields some interesting results. The relationship between a state's population and its total number of employees is, not surprisingly, significant and strongly correlated. But looking at the number of government employees as a percentage of the population, a state's population size has a weak relationship with state employment numbers and has no statistical relationship with local government employment numbers.

In fact, a simple regression analysis suggests that the "economy of scale" that does exist at the state employment level is so infinitesimally tiny that it would require adding 2.5 billion new Nevada residents to reduce "state government workers as a percentage of total population" by one percentage point. In other words, there really is no economy of scale at all.

One can conclude that economies of scale have a very weak impact on a state's ability to reduce employment size and thus do not constitute a strong explanation for why Nevada's bureaucracy is relatively small. More likely explanations include 1) Nevada's government workers are fairly well paid relative to other states' and/or 2) Nevada's government workers may well – because of fewer managers, perhaps – function more competently and efficiently than do other states' workers.

It is doubtful, of course, that Nevada's state and local governments are operating as efficiently and as productively as possible. Since most states have no real merit pay, contract bidding for state services, or fee for services, there is little incentive for governments to be efficient. State tax collection also has no relationship to the need for state services, meaning that states have little incentive to provide high-quality services given they can collect revenue whether or not they provides any services to speak of.

Nevada needs to look toward increasing government efficiency and productivity before considering raising taxes.

Sources:

Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 451 – "State and Local Government Full-Time Employment."

Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 12 – "Resident Population 1960-2006," see Nevada, column AK.

The untenable nature of NV state employee pay raises

The ongoing recession has drawn attention recently to the lavish pay raises enjoyed by Nevada's state government workers. However, what has been lost on many observers is that the pay structure for state workers suffers from a systemic problem. Pay raises for state workers are far out of line with what workers in the private sector earn even during periods of robust economic growth. Hence, while the recession has hastened the attention that is paid to state employee raises, the issue has been problematic for some time.

There are generally two types of state employee pay raises in Nevada. First, most state employees receive an annual 4.5 percent "step increase" for each of their first 10 years. Because this raise is percentage-based, it compounds over time, meaning that a typical state employee with 10 years' experience receives 155.3 percent of the pay he received in his first year. This increase is performance-neutral. It is granted to employees simply based on time served and provides little incentive for state employees to improve government efficiency.

• Annual cost-of-living adjustments
• FY02 - 4%
• FY03 - 4%
• FY04 - 0%
• FY05 - 2%
• FY06 - 2%
• FY07 - 4%
• FY08 - 2%
• FY09 - 4%

Additionally, state employees often receive annual, across-the-board "cost-of-living adjustments." These pay increases are in addition to the annual 4.5 percent increase that many state employees get. As with the step increases, they are also percentage-based, meaning they compound over time.

It is curious that COLAs only ever adjust upward. In the current fiscal year, for example, state employees are receiving a 4 percent COLA despite the fact that the prices of rents, land and gasoline are all in decline in Nevada.

There is apparently widespread misunderstanding as to how these pay raises add up in Nevada. Even Gov. Jim Gibbons recently said, "We worked to get everyone a 6 percent pay increase this biennium when a lot of companies in the private sector did not give employees any increases in salaries." It appears that even he does not correctly understand the size of these increases. The "6 percent" he refers to is simply an addition of the 2 and 4 percent COLAs that were given in FY08 and FY09, respectively. It ignores the 4.5 percent step increases that state employees received concurrently. It further ignores the fact that percentage-based increases are compounding - they cannot simply be added together. In total, state employees are receiving as much as a 15.6 percent pay increase in the 2007-2009 biennium. They have received as much as a 25.4 percent pay increase in just the last three years and as much as a 74.9 percent pay increase in the last seven years.

Year	Annual Step Increase + COLA	Cumulative Increase to Present
FY09	8.5	8.5
FY08	6.5	15.6
FY07	8.5	25.4
FY06	6.5	33.5
FY05	6.5	42.2
FY04	4.5	48.6
FY03	8.5	61.2
FY02	8.5	74.9

This rate of pay increase has not been realized in the private sector even during the best of times. It is particularly egregious that state workers continue to receive such high pay raises even during a deepening recession. There was always a day of reckoning coming for state employees. The recession has simply accelerated its arrival.