On margins tax, numbers don’t lie

The argument for passage of Question 3 holds that increased school spending translates to improved student achievement. Nevada’s schools perform poorly because they’re poorly funded, Question 3 backers claim. Therefore, pouring more money into the state’s K-12 system is the only way to guarantee better outcomes.

But there is no correlation between education spending and education outcomes, and the state’s own accountability data prove it. In fact, Nevada’s latest school ratings turn the arguments of Question 3 supporters upside down: our best-performing schools are among the worst-funded in the state, and our worst-performing schools are among the best-funded campuses in the state.

If voters approve ballot Question 3 — early voting for the Nov. 4 election started Saturday in Clark County — all businesses that collect at least $1 million in annual revenue will have to pay a 2 percent margin tax. Analyses of the tax estimate it will take about $800 million per year from the private sector and eliminate thousands of jobs. Question 3 supporters say those piles of new tax dollars will lift our education system from the bottom of the national rankings.

It’s an empty promise. This might come as a shock to some taxpayers, but all local schools are not funded equally. And contrary to the talking points of the education establishment, the haves and the have-nots are reversed. The valley’s more affluent suburban neighborhoods, which have the lion’s share of Clark County’s four- and five-star campuses, have poorly funded public schools. Low-income neighborhoods in the urban core have the valley’s best-funded schools, which tend to receive one or two stars out of five in the state’s annual report card.

This isn’t a new development. I first reported this trend about 2½ years ago, and I’m sad to say that, predictably, it hasn’t changed.

I reviewed hundreds of accountability reports to crunch the numbers. A few disclosures: Nevada’s accountability reports for the 2013-14 school year have funding data from 2012-13. (Overall school spending has increased since then.) I excluded from this analysis a handful of rural campuses with high and low rankings — Indian Springs, Sandy Valley, Laughlin, Searchlight, etc. — because their small campuses do not benefit from economies of scale. As a result, their per-student funding levels are up to three times those of urban schools. I also excluded charter schools — which received high and low rankings as well — because their poor funding levels also aren’t remotely comparable to traditional public schools, as well as behavioral and adult schools.

At the elementary level, 23 five-star schools spent an average of $7,695 per student, including $5,228 per student on instruction; 63 one- and two-star schools, on the other hand, spent $8,934 per student, including $5,934 on instruction. The seven one-star schools, broken out on their own, spent an average of $10,275 per student, including $6,570 on instruction.

At the middle school level, 14 five-star middle schools spent an average of $5,999 per student, including $3,781 on instruction. Meanwhile, eight two-star middle schools spent an average of $7,220 per student, including $4,324 on instruction. (No traditional public middle schools received a one-star rating.)

The numbers for high schools came out differently, for an obvious reason: All of the 11 valley high schools that received a five-star rating were magnet or career and technical schools, which receive more funding than traditional high schools. Those five-star high schools spent an average of $6,941 per student, including $4,498 on instruction. The 10 traditional high schools that received two stars (no traditional high school received a one-star rating) spent an average of $6,555 per student, including $3,864 on instruction. Those numbers make a powerful case for a significant expansion of magnets and career and technical schools.

Some of the numbers from individual schools are staggering. Summerlin’s five-star Givens Elementary, which is one of the most crowded schools in the valley, spent just $6,557 per student, about $1,000 less per child than the five-star average. But inner-city, two-star Wendell Williams Elementary spent $14,881 per student, or roughly twice the five-star average. At that price, why not just pay to send Williams students to an elite private school?

Summerlin’s Rogich Middle School was one of the highest-achieving schools in the state, scoring 96 points out of a possible 100 on the state’s rating system. Rogich was also one of the worst-funded middle schools in the state, at $5,196 per student, $800 below the five-star average.

Question 3 supporters are selling a lie. Money alone won’t make our schools better. It never has and it never will.

Might more money help? Yes, if it’s spent right. Magnet schools and technical schools prove that. But traditional schools need reforms and accountability, too. Nevada needs more charter schools, vouchers, an end to social promotion and, above all, an end to rewards for dysfunction and poor performance.

Question 3 delivers a larger, more expensive status quo. Vote no on Question 3.

Hashtags & Headlines

It’s not too late to get tickets for Monday’s Review-Journal election preview breakfast at Texas Station. I’ll join fellow columnists Jane Ann Morrison, Steve Sebelius and John L. Smith in a discussion of the fall’s most interesting races and what they mean for Nevada.

The breakfast will be held at the Houston Ballroom from 7:30 to 9 a.m. Tickets cost $35 and will be available at the door.

Glenn Cook (gcook@reviewjournal) is the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s senior editorial writer. Follow him on Twitter: @Glenn_CookNV. Listen to him Mondays at 4 p.m. on “Live and Local with Kevin Wall” on KXNT News Radio, 100.5 FM, 840 AM.