Tuesday, April 9, 2019 | 12:59 p.m.
CARSON CITY — Nevada’s education funding system fell short of national averages in multiple ways for the 2015-2016 school year, according to a new study.
The Albert Shanker Institute and Rutgers Graduate School of Education released a report that found Nevada ranked in the bottom 10 for effort, adequacy and progressivity.
The report defines effort as the percentage of the gross state product put into education.
Nevada, along with Tennessee, puts 2.8 % of its gross state product into education, a figure higher than only four other states. The national average is 3.5 %.
Amanda Morgan, the legal director of Educate Nevada Now, said the money is there, unlike in some states, but Nevada uses it elsewhere. “We do have the GDP and the money flowing through the state, we just choose not to capture it,” she said.
This, combined with a lack of revenue growth, has left Nevada shifting money in the education system to where it is most needed rather than increasing funding.
In a statement, Educate Nevada Now said state Democrats will release a new funding proposal this legislative session, but it will contain no new funding.
“We’re just kind of shifting things around; we’re not really seeing any growth,” Morgan said.
Adequacy essentially measures whether the state is giving enough funding to schools to ensure students reach a minimum education level.
In the highest-poverty districts, Nevada spent 56.6 % of the funding estimated to be required to get students to the national average on test scores. Oklahoma spent the same percentage, and the two are tied for the ninth-smallest allocation. The smallest goes to Arizona, with a 28.3 % allocation.
The report defines progressivity as allocating greater resources to districts with larger numbers of lower-income students.
Nevada is not doing well there, either, according to the report.
Districts with a 30 % poverty rate only receive about half of what a district with no poverty receives. That jumps to about 62 % for a 20 % poverty rate and 79 % for a 10 % poverty rate.
That is, in the report’s terms, regressive, meaning higher-income districts are getting more money than lower-income districts.
Though the study was based on past-year numbers, Morgan said the outcome would likely be similar if the study was done today.
“I don’t think you’d see a seismic shift in any way, shape or form,” she said.
