A gimmick for the rich

Vouchers divert money from students who need most help

As we approach the 2017 Legislature, I hope we can get one fact clear: Private school vouchers drain money away from public schools, and they largely benefit our state’s richest students and families.

One untrue argument put out by voucher supporters is that vouchers actually increase funding to public school districts. In a recent column, “Democrats oppose plan to increase per-pupil funding,” the ReviewJournal’s Victor Joecks argues that public school districts get to keep some state and local funding when students go to private schools.

Here’s why that argument doesn’t hold water:

• School districts have fixed costs. As vouchers take students and money out of public school systems, the cost of educating the remaining students — providing teachers, maintaining buildings, offering rigorous curriculum — must still be covered. More vouchers means fewer teachers, larger class sizes, and cuts to gifted and talented programs, art and music classes and other essential resources.

• Vouchers also create instability in budgets because districts don’t know how much of their budget will be removed from year to year — and therefore how many teachers and staff to hire, whether to fix buildings in disrepair, etc. The current mechanism does not allow school districts to effect cost savings.

• Mr. Joecks argued that districts could keep up to $4,600 of state and local funds, even if a student goes to a private school. I have consulted with many education funding experts, and we can’t figure out where he gets this number. Perhaps he is counting federal money that is allocated for students, but both the state and federal government fund only students who are actually enrolled in public schools.

It’s troubling to see the misinformation distributed by voucher supporters.

Another example is a recent poll conducted by an arm of the Clark County Education Association (CCEA), the local teachers union that now says it may be willing to accept vouchers in pursuit of its larger legislative agenda. In a recent Review-Journal article, the association’s executive director claimed the majority of Nevadans support Education Savings Accounts, the mechanism set up during the 2015 Legislature to create vouchers.

Here’s how the CCEA’s poll worded the question: “Do you support Education Savings Accounts, which give parents $5,000 to spend on their child’s education in any way they want?” So, yes, the majority of people would like to get $5,000 for their child’s education. Wouldn’t you? The poll fails to mention that a parent must withdraw their child from public schools.

Moreover, vouchers would strip the Clark County School District of an estimated $40 million a year in funding. So vouchers negatively impact public education. And the private schools, which would benefit, are not beholden to any accountability measures.

Perhaps our biggest concern is that vouchers largely will benefit students who already have access to high-quality education, but school vouchers aren’t that helpful to lowincome families. The $5,000 voucher would cover tuition at only seven private schools in Clark County. Almost all are parochial schools, and only one is located in a workingclass neighborhood.

An analysis from Educate Nevada Now found that 80 percent of parents who “pre-applied” for the Education Savings Account program live in Nevada’s most affluent ZIP codes, where their children can attend almost all fourand five-star public schools, plus numerous excellent charter schools.

The Nevada Supreme Court has already struck down Nevada’s failed voucher plan, and we applaud Democratic leaders who have said they won’t spend precious time in the 2017 Legislature trying to find a fix for a bad idea.

Here’s one thing most of us can agree on: Choice can and should be part of how Nevada moves education forward. These should be quality choices in every instance.

More than 80,000 children in Clark County need better choices because they are locked into oneor two-star neighborhood schools where they have less chance to graduate from high school.

Nevada has already made investments in strategic programs such as Zoom and Victory Schools, and the Read by Three program that ensures students can read by the end of third grade. These initiatives have started to show promise.

Let’s build on that momentum by focusing efforts in 2017 on creating a weighted school funding formula that provides more funds for students who cost more to educate, such as special education students and English language learners. And let’s tie that formula with accountability measures to ensure our taxpayer dollars are well spent.

All of our children should have the choice to attend a quality school. Let’s not distract ourselves with political issues such as vouchers that would benefit a tiny, yet outspoken, segment of our families.

A progressive and a supporter of Bernie Sanders’s campaign, Segerblom was prepared to make a Sanders-like run against Gov. Brian Sandoval in 2014, but Reid declined to sign off. Segerblom’s support for recreational marijuana (which passed comfortably in 2016, especially in counties a statewide Democratic candidate needs) should help.

Titus ran for governor in 2006, losing to Republican Jim Gibbons. Gibbons went on to set records for the most vetoes and most veto overrides. While Titus is open to seeking higher office, the temptation would have to be strong to lure her out of one of the safest Democratic House seats in the nation.

The former secretary of state lost to Laxalt in the AG’s 2014 contest, so a governor’s race would not only be a rematch but also a fulfillment of Miller’s longtime goal to be the first son to succeed his father in the governor’s mansion. (Bob Miller served from 1989 to 1999.) But the younger Miller would have to draw himself away from a successful law practice to make a bid.

The first woman to serve as Assembly speaker left politics after term limits forced her out. She now concentrates her energy on the successful Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada. Buckley was courted as a candidate before, but declined due to family obligations. It’s possible the political fire may still be smoldering.

The longtime hotelier and Democratic donor (and “Undercover Boss” star) also considered running before, and has substantial net worth, enough to self-fund a bid. And the moment may be right for him, as a businessman without prior political experience is about to be sworn in as president.