By VERNON ROBISON
Moapa Valley Progress
Members of the Moapa Valley Community Education Advisory Board (MVCEAB) are considering teaming up with Clark County School District officials in making an appeal to the Nevada State Legislature for more state funding to the rural schools in Clark County. But before the MVCEAB does that, they want some assurance that local schools will see real benefits from their lobbying efforts.
In a meeting held Friday morning at Moapa Valley High School, MVCEAB member Lindsey Dalley gave a report of the activities of a recently formed coalition group that has met over the past two months to discuss the topic of rural education funding.
The group is made up of parents, residents, school administrators and community leaders from both Moapa Valley and Virgin Valley, Dalley said.
Over the course of several meetings, the group formed an “idea” regarding a change to the way that rural schools in CCSD are viewed by the state for funding purposes, Dalley reported.
He explained that CCSD contains no less than 25 rural schools. District officials have long claimed that the cost of education in rural areas of the district far outstrips that of urban areas. This is because of the economy of scale in serving fewer students with the same overhead and infrastructure cost, Dalley explained.
The statewide numbers bear this out. The average cost to educate a student in the rural counties of the state is at around $9400 per student. But in Clark County, that average cost is only $5400 per student.
The trouble is that rural schools within Clark County are not classified as rural for state funding purposes, Dalley said. This is true despite the fact that outlying schools like those in the Moapa and Virgin Valleys meet the rural criteria in all other areas of state law. But because the local schools are not considered “rural” for funding purposes, the state doesn’t disciminate between inner city students and rural students in Clark County.
Thus, urban areas have been forced to subsidize the higher cost of rural CCSD students, Dalley explained. According to numbers gathered by CCSD administrators, the district is subsidizing rural schools to the tune of between $12 -$15 million.
“So bottom line is, they (CCSD) are looking for a political lever to pry more money from the state,” Dalley said. “They want us to join them in asking for that money and I don’t have a problem with that. I can support that.”
The trouble comes in determining what the local schools stand to gain from these efforts, Dalley said. In fact, Dalley noted that CCSD Assistant Superintendent Grant Hanevold, who has been involved in the coalition’s discussions, had admitted that, no additional funding would flow to the schools initially.
“To his credit, Hanevold was up front with us and said that, even if we get that money from the state, it would just be going to make the district whole from subsidizing us,” Dalley said.
This was disappointing to Dalley. He felt hesitant about advocating at the legislature for the funding if local schools were to receive no visible benefits.
“I feel like if we are doing all of this, there needs to be something in it for us, better than just the status quo if we are lucky,” Dalley said.
But local school administrators cautioned the board to not seem to be asking for too much. They said that the situation offered an opportunity to build political strength and good will among CCSD officials and trustees. This could bring longer-term benefits, they said.
“We have asked for a lot of things and fought hard for them,” said Grant Bowler Elementary principal Shawna Jessen. “I think in the process we have rubbed a lot of people at CCSD the wrong way. This could be a way to return some good will and work alongside the Superintendent on something.”
In addition, codifying local schools as “rural” by the state for funding purposes would be a step forward all on its own, Jessen added. It could eventually bring categorical funding to the schools in the future, she said.
“At least we would be in a category where we weren’t before,” Jessen stated.”That is a benefit.”
Mack Lyon principal Ken Paul pointed out that the conversation about rural equity in the schools would be a long and detailed process. But that process would need to take place first to define rural equity before specific demands could be made by outlying schools, he said. The trouble is the timing, Paul added.
“The Legislature is happening right now,” Paul said. “This plan would just be trying to present something now to legislators that will take us a step further. Then we still have to work the equity piece out.”
MVCEAB members agreed with these points in general. But they still wanted assurance that the root equity problem would be addressed before they fully engage with the district in this.
“I’ve played this game long enough to know that if you allow the CCSD bureaucracy to keep you operating inside of their bubble you will lose every time,” Dalley said. “That is just the reality. It is very seldom that good faith promises have ever translated into dollars in our schools.”
Nevertheless, board members expressed willingness to support the CCSD efforts on rural funding issues on a conditional basis.
“I think we need an ‘if-then’ statement that ties this rural funding issue to an ongoing quest for rural equity in education,” said MVCEAB member Wendy Mulcock. “Those two things just can’t be separated out as far as I’m concerned. They have to be tied together.”
In the end the board voted to write a letter addressed to both CCSD Superintendent Jesus Jara and the Board of Trustees expressing conditional support to the plan.
The board approved a motion that they fully support the efforts to acquire state funding for rural CCSD schools IF the district agreed to channel that funding to establish rural equity, including forming a coalition with rural stakeholders throughout the district to define what rural equity should be.
