Feature Stories - October 2006

Nevada’s image of educational mediocrity is changing. But State Senator Sandra Tiffany said changing the perception is a challenge in itself. Not all schools are experiencing the same problems or meeting with the same success. "There are definite pockets of problems," she said. "Some schools are exceeding expectations, while others are failing."

The Nevada Department of Education recently released its school ratings for 2006. The ratings, part of the state’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) model, are based on school performance on standards-based reading, writing and math assessments. The goal is for all schools to make the AYP. If the school as a whole or any of its identifiable student groups doesn’t meet annual proficiency goals, participation requirements, attendance requirements or graduation requirements, that school is listed as not having made AYP for that year. In fact, there are 37 ways in which a school can fail to make AYP.

If a school doesn’t meet AYP for one year, it is placed on the "Watch" list. If it fails to meet AYP two or more consecutive years in the same subject area, the school is identified as "In Need of Improvement." It then takes two consecutive years at AYP for that designation to be lifted. To be considered "Exemplary" or "High Achieving" the school must also exceed current-year expectations.

Out of Nevada’s 613 public schools/programs, 17 schools have been designated as Exemplary, 79 as High Achieving, 55 are on Watch and 233 are In Need of Improvement.

Dr. Keith Rheault, superintendent of public instruction for the Nevada Department of Education, said, "Schools performed quite well overall, and as a result, fewer schools are In Need of Improvement than anticipated, based on results from the 2005 school year." Indeed, 74 schools showed a year of improvement. One more year of improvement and they move into the Watch category (until then, they are considered on hold).

While three schools moved into the High Achieving ranks, 14 schools have remained In Need of Improvement for four years, and the districts in which the schools are located must now prepare plans for restructuring those schools.

Tiffany would like to see the entire Clark County School District (CCSD) restructured. She said the largest school district in the state is too big and too bureaucratic, with too many administrative layers between parents and anyone who can make a decision on behalf of the school. She supports breaking up the district into a community-based school system. However, a lot of questions need to be answered before anything so radical could be accomplished. How would assets be divided? Who would draw the lines? What would be done with existing contracts?

Dr. Walt Rulffes, the newly elected superintendent of the CCSD, is familiar with this question of splitting up the district and agrees that more work needs to be done. He said he would probably support a split, but a three-pronged test must first be conducted. "First, there must be clear evidence through extensive scientifically-based research that a split would improve student achievement," he said. "Second, major economic differences between areas and racial imbalances must be addressed and taken into account before any restructuring can take place. Finally, taxpayers must be aware of the costs, as any such split will come with an increased cost to taxpayers."

Tiffany has a multi-step solution of her own. "The first step is to get answers," she said. "The second step is to get it on the ballot and let the people vote for it." Current statutes set the rule of one district for every county. To change that would require legislative action or the people’s action through a ballot initiative. Tiffany has chosen the latter. "I’m choosing to get the tough answers and let the people vote on it," she said.

Nevada has spent a lot of time on the bottom end of the Morgan Quitno Press’s "Smartest States" lists and came in 47th in the 2005-2006 rankings. But the state is not alone. Other western states sharing the dubious honor of the five worst are California (46), New Mexico (48) and Arizona (50). Others in the West fared only slightly better: Wyoming (17), Idaho (28), Washington (30), Utah (33) and Oregon (38). Nevada’s ranking of 47 was an improvement over 2004-2005 numbers when the state came in 49th; in 2002-2003 it was ranked No. 46.

Rheault said, "When we look at state averages, we are in the lower quarter, but when you consider the students we are working with, I think we do pretty well overall." He pointed out the increasing number of children whose native language is not English. In addition, Nevada’s transiency rates (percentage of children who do not finish the school year at the same school they started) are a challenge across the state. Esmeralda County is faced with a transiency rate of nearly 60 percent and Lincoln County has 44 percent. And it’s not just the rural counties. Clark is looking at nearly 36 percent and Washoe is sitting at nearly 28 percent. White Pine County has the most stable population, but even it has a transiency rate of 13 percent. Statewide, the transient student population is 33.5 percent.

It is easy to grade a state’s educational system by examining its largest districts. Nevada continues to see a gloves-off contest between the two giants of Nevada: CCSD and Washoe County School District (WCSD).

Population growth in both urban centers continues to skyrocket. Clark County has increased by 335,000 people since 2001; Washoe County has seen an influx of 50,000 people during the same period. WCSD Superintendent Paul Dugan focused on the types of growth each district is experiencing, calling WCSD growth "manageable growth," while labeling CCSD growth "forced growth" that necessitates reaction rather than action. "Besides the numbers," Dugan said, "this is the main difference in the challenges both districts face."

WCSD consists of 87 schools and roughly 64,000 students. Though not a direct part of the school system, four higher education campuses support the district. On the other hand, CCSD carries the title of fifth-largest school district in the nation (behind only New York City Public Schools, Los Angeles Unified, City of Chicago School District 299 and Dade County School District). The district has more than 300 schools and services more than 300,000 students.

Neither district is in stellar condition. The AYP designated WCSD as In Need of Improvement for the third year. CCSD is "on hold," having made adequate yearly progress after two years of being In Need of Improvement.

According to The Rural School and Community Trust, only 7.4 percent of Nevada’s students attend schools located in rural areas, and 19 percent of the state’s schools are in rural areas. The Trust considers funding among school districts in Nevada far from even. In fact, it considers the funding the fourth worst in the nation. The percentage of state education funding to rural schools is only 10.8 percent.

Kathy St. Clair, Nevada director of Title I services and assistant director of special education and school improvement, said, "These rural communities are not just remote – in some cases, they are completely isolated." This alone can create factors detrimental to the entire educational system.

Antoinette Cavanaugh, superintendent for Elko County School District, has lived in her county for 23 years. She even went to school there. She said that while the larger districts have to contend with constant growth, the rural ones are challenged by the boom and bust of the often disparate communities within the counties. "We’ve handled our growth pretty well," she said, "but huge, rapid growth would leave us scrambling." Two factors that have helped the district handle its booms and busts are its pay-as-you-go building and renovation policy and a hold-harmless agreement with the Nevada Legislature. If the district goes through a bust period, the Legislature won’t reduce its per-student allocation.

However, Cavanaugh said neither growth, ESL or transiency is as big a challenge as finding qualified teachers willing to move to what is considered a rural area (she contends that Elko, being equidistant to three major cities – Salt Lake City, Boise and Reno – is not rural). This is certainly a problem neither of the big districts is facing. The Title I Program

Title I, the largest federal education program ever, began as a part of President Lyndon Johnson’s "War on Poverty" by way of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. For schools in areas with high poverty rates, it sets standards to determine eligibility for federal funding. It currently affects over 75 million American children every year. Its intent is to attack poverty through early education.

"There are different ways to determine which districts receive how much money, and it’s based on the poverty level for that school," explained St. Clair. Title I funding provides for several different projects that improve school technology, facilities and morale. These include remedial programs, new teachers, teacher training, tutoring programs, after-school programs and ESL programs. This year, Nevada received $77 million in Title I funding. All 17 school districts in the state received a portion, with CCSD receiving $57 million of that Title I money.

Title I is often measured by how many students are eligible for free and reduced-price school lunches. In Nevada, 171,000 students (41.5 percent) are eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program. Nearly 134,000 of those students live in Clark County. Another 21,000 live in Washoe County. But the highest percentage of students in the program reside in Esmeralda County, where 66 percent of students (57 students) are eligible.

In Nevada, more than 63,000 students (15.5 percent) have limited English proficiency. St. Clair said she’s heard numbers closer to one in every five students – nearly 75,000 students – are ESL. The majority of these students (more than 50,000) live in Clark County. Washoe County adds another 9,000 to that roster. However, the county with the highest percentage of students with limited English proficiency is Carson City with 18 percent (1,548 students).

Not all students with a limited proficiency in English come from families who do not speak English at home. But students with English as a second language do make up a large portion of this group.

For instance, Rulffes understands English proficiency stems from a number of reasons, including poverty, as well as ESL families. As opposed to simple increases in numbers of non-English speaking families, he said, "We have a changing population here. And getting these kids proficient [in English] is a challenge we must take and must respect."

Joe Enge, chairman of EdWatch Nevada and a research fellow for the Nevada Public Research Institute, said that in his years as an educator, he observed that whether or not a child comes from a family with a familiarity with academics (such as parents who have been to college) is more important to success than whether or not the family speaks English. However, our system focuses on the language barrier alone.

On August 6, 2006, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported, "The Nevada State Board of Education recommended that the 2007 Legislature increase spending on public education by $1 billion," boosting current salaries and also adding over 2,000 teachers across the state. Other measures the board approved were decreasing student-teacher ratios from 21.4 to 19.7. This proposal passed with a vote of 9 to 1. The one opponent, Barbara Myers, said she turned it down simply because she wanted to decrease the ratio even further.

Governor Kenny Guinn has requested programs to apply the federal "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) standards as soon as possible. Nevada’s plan of NCLB implementation takes shape in "Every Child Can Succeed." In 2003, the Nevada Legislature passed motions requiring improvement plans be regularly developed, revised and implemented on every level of education, thus creating a comprehensive, evolving approach to education reform. A program can take several years to see results. Fortunately, Nevada began this process three years ago. Programs such as "Every Child Can Succeed" are in place to set Nevada up for success. The Nevada Department of Education also developed a research-based improvement process called "Student Achievement Gap Elimination," or SAGE, to help schools and districts in their efforts.

Even smaller districts are seeking new ways to help students live up to their potential. Cavanaugh noted she has increased ESL teaching positions and has opened a position for an ESL Coordinator (though, after five months, that position remains unfilled). She also mentioned a variety of programs to help prepare students not only for college, but also for the workforce.

Readiness for college is a hot ssue in Nevada now, with reports that about 40 percent of the Nevada high school graduates in 2005 who enrolled at the state’s colleges and universities had to take at least one remedial course. Jim Rogers, chancellor for the Nevada System of Higher Education, said that is going to change, and not for the usual reasons (more teachers, more funding). He said Nevada grads are seeing better programs because of a drastic increase in coordination between K-12 and the university system. This newfound spirit was only recently implemented, but Rogers sees it as revolutionary. "Everyone is working together," he said. "There are memoranda of agreement everywhere. With 13 regents and eight presidents getting along, it is a whole new world."

Rogers noted partnerships such as that between Clark County Community College and CCSD in which students will be tested at the end of their junior year, rather than their senior year, so they will know which classes they need to take in order to be college-ready. And those high school classes will garner both high school and college credits.

In 2002, Anderson Elementary School in Washoe County was one of two schools to fail its Adequate Yearly Progress targets in three consecutive years, according to www.schoolsmovingup.net. Only 22 percent of third graders and only 9 percent of sixth graders were reading proficiently. But during the 2003-2004 school year, Anderson Elementary not only improved dramatically in literacy goals, but it also earned "High Advancement Status." In 2004-2005, the school continued to make Adequate Yearly Progress.

Examples like this demonstrate Nevada’s ability to adapt, to change, to better itself in the tide of educational reforms washing across the nation. Dr. Rulffes was once quoted as saying, "I’m willing to steal some of the best ideas from districts all over the country and use them." He still stands by this statement. Recently, he expanded on this idea: "We all have to be conscious of the best practices of other districts. And we need to listen to the people in the field: faculty, students and area businesses. They all have something to offer."

The ultimate objective of education is to prepare a new generation to bring success and prosperity to themselves and to the institutions and communities that supported them through childhood. Education is the lock on the door of success; it’s up to the people of Nevada to turn the key of reform to unlock its treasures.