EDITORIAL: Democrats accept mediocrity for Nevada kids

The evidence mounts that Nevada’s legislative Democrats are exceedingly content with the dismal state of public education in Clark County.

Test scores last year revealed that some 60 percent of third-, fourth- and fifth-graders failed to meet proficiency expectations in English language arts. Nary a peep.

Math proficiency is at a dreary 22 percent for middle schoolers. Dead silence.

ACT scores document on an annual basis that only a small percentage of Southern Nevada high school students are prepared for college-level work in a variety of subjects. Crickets.

They cynically accept these disturbing realities — and have done so for decades, blocking virtually every serious effort at education reform in service to a status quo that fails thousands of district children each year. Instead, they insist that the only way forward is a massive infusion of taxpayer support. Never mind that the Legislature passed the two largest tax hikes in state history over the past 20 years to beef up public education spending — with little noticeable improvement in student achievement.

The latest manifestation of how they’ve cozied up with mediocrity was on display Wednesday when the Legislature’s Interim Finance Committee met to consider a proposal to allocate $3.2 million for the state’s tiny Opportunity Scholarship program, which provides tax credits for private organizations that donate to scholarship funds to help low-income students attend private schools. Over the past few years, legislative Democrats have attempted to starve the initiative out of existence. This has left many families worried that their children will lose the aid and no longer be able to attend their current schools.

But the pleas of those families were wholly dismissed when the 15 Democrats on the 22-member panel voted as a bloc against appropriating the additional money. They couched their indifference as an effort to protect the public schools and to ensure that existing scholarship funds were being spent properly. Fair enough: Government spending should be subjected to financial review. But it’s notable that the most vocal Democrats on the committee sought to hold the Opportunity Scholarship program to a standard they would never dream of applying to the public school system itself.

Indeed, while Gov. Joe Lombardo and lawmakers last year passed a
$2 billion increase in education spending over the next budget cycle, Democratic lawmakers had little concern about ensuring school districts get results in return for this budget generosity. And if money were truly the only answer to the state’s poor academic rankings, wouldn’t they welcome increased scrutiny to prove the point as more students began to flourish? Quite the opposite.

In recent years, Democrats in Carson City have subverted, opposed or killed proposals to ensure that children reach reading proficiency by third grade, that underperforming public school teachers face consequences and that the Clark County School District — the nation’s fifth largest — be deconsolidated. They have eliminated exams intended to ensure Nevada high school graduates have acquired basic skills, and they stood in silence as Clark County dumbed down its grading policies to provide the illusion of academic progress.

The Opportunity Scholarship controversy represents a microcosm of the ongoing debate over education reform in both Nevada and across the country. But what does it say about how legislative Democrats truly view the current system when they express the fear that even modest competition from charters or choice programs represents a dire threat to the public schools? In fact, providing families more educational opportunities has the potential to strengthen the public schools rather than cripple them.

What conclusion can a Nevada parent draw at this point other than that many state Democrats have accepted this sorry state of affairs as more lucrative for their campaign coffers and financial benefactors than any potential improvements? After all, there are a lot of people doing quite well under the current arrangement. Unfortunately, not many of them are younger than 18 years old.