Funding cuts put schools on defensive again

By Emily Richmond

Thursday, Aug. 28, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Teachers and administrators have argued for years that Nevada’s public schools could meet high expectations if they were properly funded.

For two years, they got additional money. Clark County educators said the boost helped the district meet state and federal No Child Left Behind requirements. Heartened by the progress, the Legislature last year approved another $56 million statewide for school improvement and innovation.

But then came the economic downturn and state budget cuts. The money evaporated, including more than $18 million for Clark County. Projects at most campuses won’t leave the starting gate without the money upfront to staff them.

Caroline McIntosh, superintendent of the Lyon County School District and chairwoman of the commission that handed out the grants, said it was devastating to watch Clark County’s money slip away. The cuts represent more lost opportunities than McIntosh cares to count, she said.

Perhaps just as important, they also mean a setback in the public debate. Once again, educators are left to argue, almost as an article of faith, that Nevada’s schools can make true, systemic change if given the money.

And critics again can argue, absent evidence to the contrary, that the issue isn’t whether schools need more money but how the money they have can be spent more wisely. Many schools would be better off financially if more of the budget decisions were made by principals, rather than central office administrators, the critics argue.

It’s the 1990s all over again.

But this time, the cuts keep on coming. After erasing the money for innovation and improvement, the state cut another 14 percent statewide — $133 million in Clark County.

Parents had hoped for more full-day kindergarten classes. Those dollars, $13.6 million, were among the first sliced from the budget.

Cuts were made to programs for gifted and talented students, career and technical education, and other programs that have helped students graduate and find success in life.

Fewer dollars will be available for school supplies. Field trips will be curtailed.

Higher costs of dairy and wheat products and fuel to deliver them mean students will pay more for cafeteria meals.

Many schools now say their first priority is making sure a child has food, shelter and medical care, necessary precursors to academic success. Little money is left over for such “extras,” and the schools often must turn to private donors for help. Principals are becoming fundraisers, with schools as charitable causes.

Perhaps part of the resistance to better funding for schools is that education is sometimes seen as important only to a closed circle: students, parents and teachers.

Educators and others argue that’s a shortsighted view. “I can’t help but think it will hurt the future prosperity of this community not to have an educational system we can brag about,” Clark County Schools Superintendent Walt Rulffes said Wednesday.

Some business leaders have argued that, instead of a financial burden, schools should be seen as an asset to be developed and nurtured — a draw for new residents and a reason for locals raising families to stick around during a downturn.

These business leaders ask: How will Clark County attract the new businesses and industries needed to diversify its economy without offering employers the lure of stellar schools, at both the K-12 and the higher ed levels?

And some of them note that the only businesses in this state that pay taxes are in the gaming industry.