Nevada Per-Student Funding Ranks 37th

Posted by Webmaster on November 12, 2008 under K-12

Nevada’s ranking on K-12 spending is not simple to calculate, nor without controversy

We actually rank 37th in education spending – at least we ranked 37th for the 2004/2005 school year anyway. That is the latest data from the National Center for Education Statistics run by the federal government. This is a source that seems far more believable than local advocates. (In the two school years since 04/05, Nevada’s per-pupil education spending has been increased faster than the national average increase, so our ranking is likely even higher than 37th for this school year).

Every year, NCES sends this form to every school district in America, compiles the results and makes them available here.

Each year’s survey results are called the “Core of Common Data” and they form the basis for all national rankings of school systems.

Here are the steps to determine Nevada’s ranking:

• Download the 2005 (v.1a – Final) zip file and uncompress it
• Imported it into a database, say Access or SQL
• Use a data analysis tool such as Crystal Reports to summarize the results by state
• Export the summary data by state into an Excel datafile, such as this one. (you must have Excel installed to use this file)

Anyone can follow these directions and arrive at the same conclusion.

Nevada’s per-pupil expenditure of $8,707 ranks 37th, far from the bottom that some claim. Our payroll benefits per student ranks 30th.

Anticipating The Counter-argument

Those who say our funding ranks at the bottom insist that total expenditures is a deceptive number upon which to gauge our education spending. They suggest you should break total expenditures into “Current” and “Non-Current” expenditures, and throw out the “Non-Current” numbers.  And indeed, Nevada ranks lower amongst states in expenditures when you toss out part of each state’s expenditures.

Conversely, Nevada’s “Non-Current” ranking is much higher than our Total Expenditure ranking. In fact, Nevada ranks first in the difference in national rankings of “Current” and “Non-Current” expenditures (our ranking moves 33 positions, from 46 current to 13 non-current). The fastest growing state, Arizona, ranks 38th in non-current.

It turns out that our administrators in Nevada do not follow NCES guidelines on classifying total expenses between the two categories “current” and “non-current.” In fact, they include some of what NCES calls “current” in with their “non-current” totals, deflating “current” spending and inflating “non-current” spending. They appear to do this in order to facilitate spending construction bond funding on operating costs.

States Nevada Leads
KANSAS
ARKANSAS
MONTANA
KENTUCKY
SOUTH DAKOTA
LOUISIANA
ALABAMA
NORTH CAROLINA
OKLAHOMA
ARIZONA
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
IDAHO
UTAH

Cost of Being Green

Posted by Webmaster on November 11, 2008 under Energy, News

Clark County’s government is flush enough to pay 50% more for its fleet of cars so that they may burn cleaner fuel. How much extra should taxpayers pay in order to put our governments out there on the edge of energy technology?

After the 2006 election, lame duck Governor Kenny Guinn ordered that all copy paper used in 2007 and later would be required to have an unusually high percentage of recycled paper, at cost of about 50% more than normal paper. Governor Gibbons reversed the Guinn edict once he took office.

UNLV vs. Rutgers

Posted by Webmaster on November 11, 2008 under Higher Ed

Here is an excellent article by the chair of UNLV’s Faculty Senate. Dr. Nasser Daneshvary responds to a social work professor who wrote a series of Sunday opinion articles portraying a dismal state of affairs and even darker future – unless Chancellor Jim Rogers gets his way and raises taxes.

Dr. Daneshvary agrees that UNLV is severely underfunded, but nevertheless has some shining areas of excellence.

• Enrollment appears to be increasing in key areas.
• Entrance standards were raised to a 3.0 high school GPA this fall.
• UNLV was the 4th fastest growing university in America in research output, during a time when the top-200 universities were flat or declining.
• UNLV is top-ranked in advertising research.

Mostly, he correctly notes, UNLV is only 50 years old – compared with Rutgers, which is pushing 250 years old. Rutgers was the comparison institution in the dark portrait painted by the social work professor.

I believe UNLV will continue to be underfunded as long it depends so heavily on state taxpayers. Rutgers, for example, only gets 25% of its funding from New Jersey state taxpayers where UNLV gets 44% of its funding (including capital) from Nevada state taxpayers.

Of course, for some, Nevada families will never pay enough taxes. Some people will always think UNLV underfunded, just as some people today say Rutgers is underfunded.

Dental School Roots Betrayed

Posted by Webmaster on November 11, 2008 under Dental School

UNLV’s Dental School was created on a promise – now proven false – that it would not cost Nevada taxpayers anything. Rebecca Ward from Dayton, NV, emailed legislators in 2005…

I am writing this e-mail to express my thoughts regarding the Dental School.  I am a retired State employee.  When the Dental School was first introduced to the legislators, I was the budget analyst in the Department of Administration who prepared the Executive Branch budget for the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy.

I will never forget how Senator Rawson pushed through his plans for the Dental School.  It was at a time when all budgets were severely restricted from introducing new programs due to State fiscal problems.  All new programs were to be justified through an extensive “business plan” process.  Senator Rawson used his considerable power to push this program through without the normal “business plan” checks and balances.  Instead, he convinced his colleagues that this program could be funded primarily through Medicaid funds, Intergovernmental Transfer Account funds, and other miscellaneous funding.  He also claimed that there was a severe shortage of dentists in Nevada and that the school would alleviate this shortage.

It is my opinion that the Dental School was not properly justified and that it was pushed through at the final legislative hours for purely political purposes.

A Review Journal editorial reported the same information…

The sponsors’ initial promise was that Nevada’s dental school would cost the state nothing — Medicaid funds that foot dental care for poor children would simply be channeled to the new school, covering its entire budget in exchange for the instructors’ willingness to perform the needed charity work “out the back door,” as it were.

When that turned out to be illegal, a new pair of schemes was hatched. The state contracted with Sierra Health to handle the Medicaid contract — paying that firm a percentage of the take for this legal “cover” — and meantime the state bought out three private Southern Nevada dental practices, the intention being to take over those patient rosters, have dental school faculty tend to those patients’ dental needs, and use the resulting profits to fund the dental school.

But, “The patients more or less found other service providers,” recalls state Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, who replaced Mr. Rawson in Carson City.

The bottom line? In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004, the dental school collected only $2.35 million of registration fees. The rest of its $26 million budget comes from taxes of one form or another, no matter how they’re routed. That budget is slated to go up next year and every year thereafter.

The problem with closing it down is there are students there who believe they are entitled to their degree – and a number of legislators agree and are willing to raise taxes to fund their belief. However, with many US dental schools now private, perhaps we can find one that would agree to “take over” UNLV’s school, with a state subsidy for existing students until they graduate.

UNLV Diversity Office Very Expensive

Posted by Webmaster on November 11, 2008 under Diversity

So, folks, here’s the bone.

UNLV’s Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion is paid $163,000 per year. Tack on 30% in benefits, and you’re over $200,000. And that probably doesn’t include her government car. And she’s got a staff of three or four and a travel budget. To do what?

The Las Vegas Sun’s search engine offers several thoughts, but the first story that comes up suggests that “diversity” means applicants who don’t meet academic admission standards should be admitted anyway, if Dr. Clark approves of their race:

…taking race into account in admissions would be an appropriate way to increase diversity — if only Nevadans were ready for that.

“I would like for us to consider race, but I do not think there is support for that in Nevada at the moment,” said Christine Clark, vice president for diversity and inclusion at UNLV.

The second story makes it clear that the wasteful effort is Chancellor Jim Rogers’ idea:

University system Chancellor Jim Rogers in December 2005 mandated the position, which had been a matter of contention with then-President Carol Harter. They quarreled about the need for the position and the job description.

Another newspaper story starts out:

UNLV and UNR administrators are flummoxed, trying to improve their campuses’ reputations by raising academic standards without undermining campus diversity.

Campus diversity, at the expense of raising academic standards, is costing students and taxpayers a quarter-million dollars per year.

NSHE Spending Growth

Posted by Webmaster on November 11, 2008 under Higher Ed

Here is how much NSHE has been spending the past few years:

Over the seven years above, higher ed spending increased from $496 million to $912 million, an 84% increase. Nevada taxpayers’ contribution (the General Fund) was even higher, an increase of over 95% since FY 2002.