SEEING RED
Leftist lawmakers explore aggressive tactics to derail debate about funding issues for education
BY JOE ENGE

Joe Enge serves as an education analyst with NPRI, as chairman of EdWatch Nevada, and as a member of the Carson City School Board. Author of two world history textbooks, Joe was a high school teacher in Nevada from 1988 to 2006 and a Fulbright teacher to the former Soviet Union. You can read more of his articles at www.edwatchnevada.com

Liberal legislators Barbara Buckley, Debbie Smith and Dina Titus saw red this Valentine’s Day when Dr. Richard Phelps and I testified for Nevada Policy Research Institute about the fatal flaws of the Education Finance Adequacy Study to the Legislature.

Nevada taxpayers paid a Colorado consultant $225,000 for a study that used questionable methods to determine an inflated conclusion; Nevada was short $1.3 billion for “adequate spending” in the 2003-2004 school year and a great deal more would be needed to become “adequate” in successive years.

Dr. Phelps completed an analysis of the study for NPRI titled “Thoroughly Inadequate: The ‘School Funding Adequacy’ Evasion,” which is available at www.npri.org. Dr. Phelps wrote, “Does their adequacy study or, for that matter, could any adequacy study, really provide ‘a definitive answer’ to Nevada’s education funding needs? What about productivity? Adequacy refers to inputs, but what about outputs? Do adequacy studies consider productivity, and if they do not, are adequacy studies themselves adequate?”

The adequacy study was intended purely for political use as a false pretext to increase funding of public education while avoiding any systemic changes or accountability. Knowing full well Nevada could never afford such an extravagant sum, the study was intended to serve a twofold purpose: First, leverage as much as possible out of the system without relinquishing any control; Second, still be in a position to blame failures on a lack of money since the maximum funding amounts would never be reached.

Hats off to the cleverness of this Machiavellian plan and manipulation. 

So what went wrong? Reality. The study’s hypothetical schools are to be paid for with “real” money, not hypothetical dollars. Rather than being a “roadmap” as the cheerleaders from the “mo money” crowd chanted and repeated, it turned out to be an educational bridge to nowhere based on false assumptions. If we aren’t lost already, we definitely will be if the adequacy study is used to chart a course.

The effectiveness and depth to which the NPRI criticisms cut was demonstrated by the reactions. Before Dr. Phelps could even touch on a few key points during the testimony, Assembly Speaker Buckley interrupted him in an attempt to get him off track. She only backed off when it was explained we were invited to testify and should be given the same consideration as the adequacy study consultants.

The questioning after our presentation turned into a grilling to distract attention from the flaws and issues of the study. Suddenly it was demanded in yes-or-no terms whether we need more funding for education. I answered that it was a question of allocation. I was charged again, as if on trial, to only answer “yes” or “no,” which is blatantly ridiculous.

As if rude interruptions and prosecutorial tactics weren’t enough, Sen. Titus weighed in and was not happy. She demanded ideas that do not include funding increases. It’s a fair enough question on the surface, but it’s also a clever “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” setup that not all viewing were aware. If you answer her question, you can be accused and chastised by the chair for talking off topic, and if you don’t, they will say you can only criticize and don’t have any solutions to offer.

There are definite solutions, and they involve doing what is best for the students rather than the system. When students are the priority, the necessity for empowerment, decentralization and school choice is clear. Those who advocate otherwise will be seeing a lot more red during the 2007 session as the debates heat up and the expensive distractions such as All-Day K and the adequacy study melt away.