Gubernatorial hopefuls miss mark on education’s dire straits

Brian Sandoval and Rory Reid seem like reasonable men. They are intelligent, sincere and determined as they battle to become Nevada's next governor.

But as I listened to them debate on education Sunday night, I couldn't help thinking they were working overtime to avoid addressing the one variable that threatens to send Nevada's public schools reeling back to the '50s.

First, a couple of thoughts about the Review-Journal/KLAS-TV, Channel 8-sponsored debate at Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy:

Sandoval looked like a man who enjoys a big lead in the polls. He was relaxed and confident and spoke more like a guy preparing to hit 18 holes of golf than someone who has been losing sleep over the future of the state's troubled K-12 schools.

Reid sounded more like a candidate who hasn't been sleeping much at all. He was aggressive and showed a toughness that until Sunday had been hidden behind his professorial political announcements. Reid showed real passion, and, for what it's worth, I think he probably won the debate. (Others will say front-runner Sandoval won because he didn't tip over the lectern.)

Given the fact the debate aired opposite the Emmy Awards, that victory and 25 cents will buy Reid a new Pee Chee folder in time for the first week of school. (Ask average Las Vegans who won the debate, and they'll respond, "Kyra Sedgwick in 'The Closer.' ")

Both make much of becoming Nevada's next Education Governor, the guy for whom the success of the state's school kids is paramount. Reid's plan is friendlier to teachers and their union and focused on shoring up the structure of the current system. Sandoval advocates more sweeping changes in line with the conservative political mantra that the cure for public education's ailments is to privatize it.

Reid warned that Sandoval plans to cut $533 million from education. Sandoval countered that Reid's plan would also trim teachers' salaries.

Although the debate wasn't exactly riveting, it had its moments. Here's one:

Sandoval argued, "Yes, I call for a modest reduction in salary for all state employees, but the point of that was so that we don't have mass layoffs. Again, why would anyone want to lay anyone off when we lead the country in unemployment? It makes no sense. Everyone is in this together. We are in a budget crisis, and I think my plan is the prudent way to go."

Reid countered, "Brian was smart enough not to say 'layoff' in his plan, but the fact is he's calling for 20 percent reductions. And teachers would have to agree to it. He's asking teachers to do something they won't do, and he's suggesting that we should all do something that we shouldn't do. His plan will not work, and it will cut tens of millions of dollars for public education and lead to the termination of, I believe, thousands of teachers."

It doesn't take a high school graduate to figure improving Nevada's education system should be the next governor's top priority. Both men claim to love Nevada's schoolchildren, but would either be willing to raise taxes to improve the education system or help prevent it from slipping further into an abyss of mediocrity?

While both candidates cling to a politically prudent "no new taxes" pledge, the state faces a possible $3 billion shortfall for 2011-2013. The budget must be balanced, and that means either deep cuts or "revenue enhancement."

What that really means is, lofty thoughts aside, it will take real leadership to make difficult and unpopular decisions if public education is to remain the top priority of the next governor. Aside from some high-minded themes and fuzzy math, neither candidate cut to the real bottom line in the education debate.

Nevada's economy will make liars out of well-meaning men.

John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0295. He also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/smith.