ESA lawsuit: The phrase that everyone is ignoring

There is a key phrase that is being largely ignored in the debate over whether the legislatively approved education savings accounts (ESAs) are constitutional.

That phrase is: “for the student population reasonably estimated for that biennium.”

When Nevada voters approved the amendment to the state Constitution dubbed Education First, this is how the initiative was described:

Education first ensures our state’s public school system will be funded, before any other program for the next fiscal biennium, during each legislative session, by an appropriation the Legislature deems to be sufficient to fund the operation of our public schools for the student population reasonably estimated for that biennium.

Under Senate Bill 302, most parents who pull their children from public schools would be given 90 percent of the per pupil funding approved by the Legislature for that biennium. They could use it to educate their children by whatever means they choose — private school, tutoring, homeschooling.


This bill establishes a program by which a child enrolled in a private school may receive a grant of money in an amount equal to 90 percent, or, if the child is a pupil with a disability or has a household income that is less than 185 percent of the federally designated level signifying poverty, 100 percent, of the statewide average basic support per pupil.

The school funding bill, Senate Bill 515, states: “The basic support guarantee for school districts for operating purposes for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 is an estimated weighted average of $5,710 per pupil.”

District Judge James Wilson of Carson City in his injunction blocking enactment of the ESAs as unconstitutional declared that Article 11, Section 6.2 determined that “appropriation” means “to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use in  exclusion of all others” and therefore using part of that appropriation for ESAs violates the state Constitution.

In its entirety 6.2 states:

During a regular session of the Legislature, before any other appropriation is enacted to fund a portion of the state budget for the next ensuing biennium, the Legislature shall enact one or more appropriations to provide the money the Legislature deems to be sufficient, when combined with the local money reasonably available for this purpose, to fund the operation of the public schools in the State for kindergarten through grade 12 for the next ensuing biennium for the population reasonably estimated for that biennium.

So, if the population is reduced for each pupil pulled out of public schools, is that money still “appropriated”? Or is it then available for some other purposes, because the Legislature deemed the per pupil funding to be sufficient?

How are parents of public school children harmed if their schools get 10 percent of the funding for pupils who are not in their public school population? Additionally, public school districts keep local and federal funding. Seems more like a benefit than an irreparable harm to the parents of public school children.

Actually, for some counties there might be a huge windfall, depending on interpretation of the law, because the DSA differs for every county. For example, Esmeralda is guaranteed $24,331 per pupil; Lincoln, $10,534; White Pine, $7,799; Eureka, $9,633; Mineral, $8,980; Clark $5,512; but Lander gets only $4,374 — with some adjustments for local property tax collections. Since the ESA payout is based on 90 percent of the statewide average per pupil of $5,710, does each county keep the difference?

Attorney General Adam Laxalt has asked the state Supreme Court for an expedited ruling.




11 comments on “ESA lawsuit: The phrase that everyone is ignoring

  1. Patrick says:

    Why the difference per pupil in those counties Thomas? And please, something more than that that is what the legislators decided; why did they do it that way?

  2. Lack of local property taxes due to feds owning all the land, as well as sparse populations that still need capital expenditures and maintenance and transportation — I think.

    Sun story from 2012: “That’s largely because the state factors in local taxes and then adds money for counties that are sparsely populated and geographically remote.”

  3. Patrick says:

    I think this addresses your question about how it is that losing students hurts the other students.

    The reason, I believe, for the extra money (other than obtaining votes) is because fewer students (and less money) results in worse facilities.

    It’s like “two people can live cheaper than one”. A two bedroom apartment is not twice as expensive as a one bedroom apartment and preparing a meal for two people is not twice as expensive as it is for one. For this reason, simply eliminating a student, does not result in the same or comparable funding/resources, for the remaining students.

  4. But the district still gets at least some of the state funding without the cost of educating that student.

  5. Steve says:

    Resulting in smaller class sizes.

  6. Patrick says:

    Just as an example though, say I earn 3000 per month, and my roommate earns a similar amount, and we decide that we can afford a two bedroom apartment that costs us 2000 per months or 1000 each.

    After a few months, he decides that he wants to move out but he is willing to continue to pay 10% of what he use to pay for rent.

    So now, with the same expense of 2000 per month, I’m stuck paying 1900 myself; you can’t really contend that very little has changed right?

    I mean, realistically I can no longer afford what I used to be able to afford, even though, as with the above circumstance, I’m actually just losing one roommate, and “gaining” 100 bucks for the “privilege”.

  7. Steve says:

    Except, you are forgetting all the other people who benefit from the expanded space left when he moved out.

  8. Now, if you had 300,000 roommates …

  9. Rincon says:

    Patrick’s analogy points out an important caveat to the issue. It is unrealistic to consider allowing a sudden mass exodus from public schools. A slow transition would be more reasonable.

  10. […] should be lifted and the law enacted as written. The argument in the brief is similar to ones made here in […]

  11. […] basis. If a student moves out of a district or transfers to a private school or homeschooling, the per pupil funding is affected in the same […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s