Loading ...Nevada Ed Spending Ranks 37th
November 4th, 2007Nevada doesn’t rank 47th, 48th or 49th in education spending, as proponents of higher taxing and spending claim.
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 folks with private agendas. (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.
I downloaded the 2005 (v.1a - Final) zip file, imported it into a database, and used Crystal Reports to summarize the results by state. I then exported the summary data by state into an Excel datafile which I have posted here (you must have Excel installed). I provide all these links so advocates for higher taxes can follow my footsteps and see if they arrive at a different ranking. They won’t.
Nevada’s per-pupil expenditure of $8,707 ranks 37th, far from the bottom that educrats claim. Our payroll benefits per student ranks 30th.
Anticipating The Educrat Counter-argument
Usually, the educrats respond that total expenditures is a deceptive number upon which to gauge our education spending. You have to break total expenditures into “Current” and “Non-Current” expenditures, and throw out the “Non-Current” numbers. This is required due to our growth rate. And indeed, Nevada ranks lower amongst states in expenditures when you toss out part of each state’s expenditures.
Even if you can buy this twisted accounting, it turns out that 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.
In Nevada, “current” and “non-current” are labels assigned by our educrats differently than in other states. I don’t know if it is their intent, but the effect of the classification of expenditures is to deceptively claim our funding is last rank or near-last rank.
States Nevada Leads
KANSAS
ARKANSAS
MONTANA
KENTUCKY
SOUTH DAKOTA
LOUISIANA
ALABAMA
NORTH CAROLINA
OKLAHOMA
ARIZONA
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
IDAHO
UTAH
November 6th, 2007 at 7:48 am
The opposition’s cheerleader - LV Review Journal editorial opinion writer Erin Neff - got the story above profoundly wrong today.
Total spending = “current” plus “non-current.” When our educrats use “current” they do not mean “more timely.” (and, by the way, the 2005 data says our “current” rank is 46, not 49, Ms. Neff. The spreadsheet is just a download away.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
[...] Nevada Ed Spending Ranks 37th [...]
November 10th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I am troubled by the fact that Nevada does not have a very high achievement record in our school system. Some will argue that point of course, but the fact is there are some very visible problems here. I believe out native children are being slowed down by the large influx of non English speaking children. While the law requires all children to attend school it does not necessarily mention specific times.
I would like to see English speaking and non English speaking children separated. English speaking in the morning at regular times. Non English speaking in the afternoon. As the non English speakers become proficient in English they would be absorbed back into the English speaking classes. There are a lot of questions and answers that cannot be undertaken in an email but here are a few thoughts.
1. Teachers would not have to teach to the lowest common denominator 2. Students would have a better learning environment 3. Classroom sizes would be smaller 4. Fewer new facilities would have to be built easing the strain on the system 5. CCSD should adopt a year around system. The summer vacation was originally devised to allow kids to help harvest crops. We don’t have any of that around here.
On the downside there would be one more bus run and the need for more teachers. Many government offices work a 10 hour day. I am sure there are teachers that would like that also. Substitutes and even student teachers might qualify if you were to make the step into cyber school. Classes would be instructed by computer with the teacher there to augment but with out the burden of normal teacher duties. The program could be played repeatedly until the student absorbs it each at their own speed. I realize there will be hundreds of hurdles to jump but the end result could be worth it. I don’t want to see America become second to any country. It will, if the kids keep getting further behind other countries in technical education.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
[...] public schools are funded 37th, not [...]