‘Kids Count’ report shows Nevada kids coming up short

The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2017 Kids Count Data Book reveals that Nevada kids are drawing short straws, especially when it comes to education where the state ranks 49th in the nation.

So, what have our governor and Democratic lawmakers done about it? Poured more money into the public schools and pulled rug out from under parents who had signed up to use education savings accounts to educate their children in private schools or at home.

When you dig into the data details you find the little has changed over the past few years despite huge tax hikes and spending.

28 comments on “‘Kids Count’ report shows Nevada kids coming up short

  1. Rincon says:

    “Huge tax hikes and spending.” Uhh…maybe not. So far as I can tell, Nevada is tied for the 47th position in state spending. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_F0p Only Georgia, Nebraska and Texas spend less as a percent of GDP. Although spending blindly is the height of foolishness, it is clear that things should be done differently. No need to reinvent the wheel though. I suspect the best way to find a good answer is to examine the policies of the best states listed such as NH, MA, VT, MN, and IA. All of them spend substantially more than Nevada. Could that have anything to do with it? Nah, can’t be. That would go against Conservative theory.

  2. Steve says:

    Coming from Massachusetts schools myself, I can say the single biggest thing that makes their school system the uncontested best in the nation is the fact Massachusetts does not have a county based government.
    Towns run their own schools.
    In Nevada counties run the schools.
    It is absolutely stupid for a tiny population like Clark County, Nevada to have the 5th largest school system in the nation.
    Break it up. It should be at least 5 separate systems and probably 10 would be better.

  3. deleted says:

    It’s interesting to compare a state’s “economic well being” with the states overall ranking here.

    Mostly blue states with economic well being rates have higher overall rankings compared to their economic well being rates, but red states are mostly the reverse.

    Massachusetts has an economic well being rank of 13 but an overall education rank of 2, while Wyoming has an overall economic well being rank of 11 but an education rank of 27.

    Pretty consistent through these rankings and it seems to suggest that blue states are willing to invest in their kids futures, with results consistent with that investment, and red states aren’t.

    Go figure.

  4. Steve says:

    Comparing Massachusetts and Wyoming is simply wrong for many of the same reasons comparing Nevada and Massachusetts.
    It’s a big reason I compared Massachusetts with Clark County rather than Nevada as a whole.

    Wyoming has a bunch of dirt between their population centers….Massachusetts has trees and and a few “historic” rock walls and roads between their towns….and the population is about evenly concentrated all the way to the Berkshires.

    Patrick (AKA “deleted”) makes another “sham” comparison!


  5. Rincon says:

    If a bunch of dirt between population centers matters so much, then why do Iowa and Minnesota rank so highly?

  6. Rincon says:

    I checked the Mississippi educational system and it also appears to be run by the towns. Do you have any evidence to suggest that town vs county control is important or is this merely conjecture?

  7. Steve says:

    I made it clear one cannot compare a whole state with lots of dirt to one with little dirt.
    I do not know what Iowa and Minnesota do, though I suspect they are treating their population centers as separate and even break them up like I say should happen to Clark County’s school district.

    If one is going to make comparisons, one must make comparisons on equal footing.
    I suspect Mississippi doesn’t fund education like Massachusetts and believe they might fund it more like Nevada.
    In MA the state sets a minimum level. Each local system is able to add from their town revenues as they see fit and this lets towns teach to their population’s needs.
    In Clark County NV’s “5th largest” school district, every area is subject to one size fits all teaching, ignoring the population of each area in favor of the bureaucracy.
    Such bureaucracy does not exist in MA.

  8. Rincon says:

    So more funding can make for a better education? I didn’t think Conservatives believed that.

    If many of the best states run their schools locally and some of the worst don’t, then it’s certainly worth considering. If not, then it cannot be taken seriously.

  9. Steve says:

    If you are going to follow the leaders, then you need to really know what they do.
    One of the factors in Massachusetts is money….but it is ONLY one of the factors.
    Nevada’s history of throwing money at the bloated bureaucracy would appear to be proof of that.

  10. Rincon says:

    Perhaps you didn’t notice. Only three states spend less as a percent of GDP than Nevada. Hard to call it bloated when 46 other states outspend them.

  11. deleted says:

    Rincon I say we spend the same percentage on defense as we do on education.

    (And in you own world, can you imagine actually spending MORE to defend your family than you spend on educating them? If you did, people would report you for child abuse but somehow we don’t give it a second thought as a country. Sad.)

  12. Rincon says:

    Strange that we feel the need to spend vast amounts on defense, considering that, unlike many other countries, we have no enemies on our doorstep. Only Israel, Russia and Saudi Arabia spend more on defense as a % of GDP, but of course, they all have a much smaller GDP than us. Although there are many other factors, I have to agree with Trump that our allies have been freeloading and need to spend more on their own defense, but if they do, then shouldn’t we start spending less on defense instead of more?

  13. Steve says:

    Bloat is not measured by money.
    Bloat is measured by the bureaucracy sucking up all the available money.
    CCSD HQ is a palace, or did you already forget about those stories when they spent all that money buying it a few years ago.
    And, lets not forget the palace level pay scales for management running the bloated bureaucracy.

    But you peeps simply refuse to see past the almighty dolla’!
    Takes someone fiscally conservative while socially liberal to point that out to you so called liberals.

  14. Rincon says:

    You show no evidence for your contention that the CCSD pays excessively. Since Nevada is at the bottom, is it possible that the CCSD recently decided to pay more in order to attract better talent? Conservatives buy into that for private industry. The same should apply to government. Don’t worry on my account though. Maybe the Nevadans are all all aware (or think they are). It’s not my concern. I’m busy watching our bloated expenses in Illinois.

    Funny that someone who sees bloat locally can’t see it in our defense budget. Maybe it’s because Washington is farther away.

  15. Steve says:

    You read this site, you have the tools to see what they are paid.


  16. Rincon says:

    I’m not going to spend 20 minutes to prove you right or wrong, just as you won’t bother to prove yourself right. Oh well…

  17. Rincon says:

    The problem isn’t finding a site with the information. The problem is finding the information within the site plus knowing that without similar information for the other 49 states, there is no basis for comparison. Since you don’t seem to have found the page with the info, what was the basis of your statement?

  18. Steve says:

    Funny, that, huh?

    No basis for comparison means we shouldn’t be looking right?

    Nothing to see here you miserly taxpayer. Just pony up the dough and don’t look where it’s going. That is none of your business.

    Now give us more!

  19. Rincon says:

    There certainly is a basis for comparison, but instead of going through the effort to find it, you just spouted what appears to be an unsubstantiated opinion. While I agree that most governments and private companies are wasteful, the question is whether the CCSD is egregious.

  20. Steve says:

    “There certainly is a basis for comparison”

    “The problem is finding the information within the site plus knowing that without similar information for the other 49 states,there is no basis for comparison.”


  21. Rincon says:

    Is it really that hard? Yes , the basis for comparison is available. No, I’m not going to bother accessing it to prove you either right or wrong. I still have no opinion about it. You do, but apparently without a firm basis.

  22. Steve says:

    You said “…there is no basis for comparison.”

    Then you said

    “There certainly is a basis for comparison”

    Which is it?

  23. Rincon says:

    “without similar information for the other 49 states, there is no basis for comparison.” The key word is without. WITH information, there IS a basis for comparison. Capisce?

  24. Steve says:

    So, you are saying there is no basis for comparison….even though you want there to be?

  25. Rincon says:

    Is this really that hard for you? I don’t believe you unless you can back up your statement.

  26. Steve says:

    Tom’s info is clear. I need to do nothing more in the way of “backup” specially as you, apparently, cannot decide whether there is basis for comparison or not!

  27. Rincon says:

    Spin ’til you’re dizzy, Steve.

  28. Steve says:

    There are no “if’s” “ands” “buts” or “why hows”

    YOU used the IF argument, not me.

    I know that is is as important to have revenue as it is to know where that revenue is going.
    CCSD has history in local media and even in Tom’s writings right on this site.

    You want to spin and I am refusing to give you something to spin.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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