Nevada’s
hidden
accountability wars
Disdain for
parents’ goals for their kids is built into the public
education establishment. But most politicians never get it.
By Steven
Miller
BusinessNevada
Senator
Bill Raggio had his doubts.
Minutes of the 2005 Legislature’s hearings make
that clear.
But Gov. Kenny Guinn was eager to try something
“new” with Nevada’s huge number of at-risk public schools, and
he’d announced the idea in his State of the State message.
An unprecedented $100 million, said Guinn,
should be given out to failing Nevada schools during the
coming biennium — the money should be “fast-tracked,” and
distributed as quickly as possible. Moreover, said the
governor, the grants should be made and overseen, not by
lawmakers, nor by the state Department of Education, but by
his own, hand-picked appointees.
Raggio’s skepticism about the Guinn approach
revealed itself in multiple ways. One was Senate Bill 214 —
legislation that Raggio had already asked legislative staffers
to draft. Its premise was and is that Nevada’s “school
improvement plan” process itself is in significant need
of improvement. So SB 214 mandated an entirely new level of
stricter, more detailed reporting by schools and districts on
their improvement plans.
Given the decades of attention the Senate
Majority Leader has already lavished on the state school
system, it says much about the system’s condition that he
concluded that new, even-tighter mandates are required.
It also suggests why Raggio repeatedly, during
the 2005 session, expressed skepticism over elements of
Guinn’s plan.
In late April, for example, Raggio noted
publicly that the legislation submitted by the governor — SB
404 — did not keep the long pledge Guinn had made to Nevada
taxpayers in his State of the State message.
“We must develop a system that is long on
accountability and short on excuses,” the self-proclaimed
education governor had announced. “It must be a system that
demands progress. And, if progress is not made, then we must
require that leadership in these failing schools be changed.
The future of our children depends on it. The future of our
state depends on it.”
Yet, as Raggio observed when Guinn aide Lisa
Foster appeared before his committee, “That is not in the
bill.” Noting the “reluctance to change” that exists within
Nevada’s school system, the senator continued: “This [grant
program] is not going to work unless there is some kind of
sanction…. Too often, there is no way to ensure there is a
mechanism to achieve the goal after the money is provided.”
Raggio’s remark reflected his years as a
legislator overseeing the Nevada public school system.
Nevertheless, the governor’s office declined to set sanctions
for wasting taxpayer funds.
“We do not want to create a disincentive to
apply for this money,” said Foster.
The final form of the administration bill,
therefore, plumbed new lows for timidity: “If a school
district or public school that receives money … does not meet
the criteria for effectiveness … over a 2-year period, the
Commission may consider not awarding future allocations
of money to that school district or public school.” (Emphasis
added.)
The differences in outlook between the senator
and the governor during the 2005 legislative session are
important. They reflect the central conflict in American
public education for over a century.
This conflict, remarkably enough, is almost
never publicly recognized by elected policymakers. And because
it is not, it has had the power, time and again, to covertly
capture and derail important public education reform efforts.
Today in Nevada this capture-and-derail process is once again
well advanced.
At root the conflict is a debate over what
really works in the classroom. While parents, policymakers and
taxpayers generally expect public school teachers to know how
to teach, many in fact do not. The reason: They’ve been taught
teaching methods well at odds with what actually does
work.
To make matters worse, large numbers of public
school educators become deeply invested in the emotionally
seductive ideology that underlies these teaching approaches.
According to that “progressive” ideology, the educational
priorities of parents, the public and policymakers are quite
unenlightened. While most parents and policymakers put the
highest priority on children actually learning, the ed
establishment — convinced of both its moral and intellectual
superiority — continues to tell itself that “genuine” learning
only unfolds naturally as the child develops. Actual
teaching of the school curriculum, therefore, is
continually discounted in favor of mere facilitation
for the supposedly happily exploring child.
Thus the accountability wars going on beneath
the surface here in Nevada.
Until the state’s ed establishment is compelled
to join with parents and focus on children’s need for actual,
long-term learning, all the $100 million programs in the world
will make little difference.
<747 words>
Steven Miller is editor of BusinessNevada and policy director
for the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
