Empowerment Schools
One bright spot on the Clark County School District horizon is the concept of empowerment schools. Pilot programs have proven very successful.
Education » K-12 »
Consultants @ $300/hr
The Clark County School District pays $300 per hour for advice. Details here.
Nevada Per-Student Funding Ranks 37th
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
Full-Day Kindergarten
Many experts, including the Rand Institute in this recent, extensive research report, say full-day kindergarten does not improve students’ long-term learning accomplishment. Some studies claim to measure a short-term improvement, but by the time children are in high school, there is no measurable improvement in academic achievement.
But it became a political issue in the 2005 and 2007 legislative sessions. The outcome was earmarked state funding for full-day kindergarten in schools where more than half of the children were eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch (such children are labeled with the acronym FRL). Eligibility is determined by each family’s “legal” income – underground income does not count.
As the 2007 legislative session got underway, a group of off-site administrators at the Clark County School District captured headlines with their own study that showed a slight but measured improvement in second grade achievement amongst children eligible for free or reduced lunch who had full day kindergarten, versus those who hadn’t.
Because the legislature’s criteria for full-day kindergarten was the percentage of children in each school eligible for FRL, the school district had children who were eliglble and those who weren’t both in full day kindergarten in some schools, and both types of children who were not in full day kindergarten in others.
Here is the first story in the Las Vegas Review Journal about the administrator’s findings. As you can see from the correction dated six weeks later, it took quite some time to sort out the administrator’s statements. Critical analysis actually started just a few days later.
The Clark County School District answered questions with half-truths and non-answers for weeks, until they finally were forced to release the rest of their findings: full day kindergarten reduced the academic performance of children from middle and upper class homes.
Children from middle and upper class homes (defined as children who do not qualify for “free or reduced lunch”) who attended full day kindergarten performed three points worse than children who did not attend full day kindergarten.
The changes in ability measured were miniscule, and based on second grade achievement. Nearly all studies conclude there is no measurable increase in academic performance once these children are in high school. The real impact of this incident is that the Clark County School District would trumpet partial and deceiving research results.
