Frustration and wrath were demonstrated by Assembly speaker Buckley, Assemblywoman Smith, and Senator Titus when Dr. Richard Phelps and I pointed out the fatal flaws of the APA Education Adequacy Study Wednesday morning.

Nevada taxpayers paid a Colorado consultant $225,000 for a study that used questionable methods to determine an inflated conclusion; Nevada was short $1.3 billion for “adequate spending” in the 2003-2004 school year and a great deal more would be needed to become “adequate” in successive years.

Dr. Phelps completed an analysis of the study for Nevada Policy Research Institute titled: Thoroughly Inadequate: The ‘School Funding Adequacy” Evasion, which can be downloaded and read at www.npri.org. Dr. Phelps and I testified last August when the study was first released.

A great deal of time and money were used to develop this study and use it as a false pretext for increasing funding for public education while avoiding any systemic changes or accountability. Knowing full well Nevada could never afford such an extravagant sum, the study was intended to serve a twofold purpose; leverage as much as possible out of the system without relinquishing any control and still be in a position to blame failures on a lack of money since the maximum funding amounts would never be reached.

Hats off to the cleverness of this Machiavellian plan and manipulation. So what went wrong? Reality. These hypothetical schools are to be paid for with “real” money, not hypothetical dollars. Rather than being a “roadmap” as the cheerleaders from the “mo money” crowd chanted and repeated, it turned out to be an educational bridge to nowhere based on false assumptions. If we aren’t lost already, we definitely will be if the adequacy study is used to chart a course. Don’t take my word for it; read Dr. Phelps’ detailed analysis on the NPRI Web site.

The effectiveness and depth to which the NPRI criticisms cut was demonstrated Wednesday morning by the reactions. Before Dr. Phelps could even touch on a few key points during the testimony, Assembly speaker Buckley interrupted him in an attempt to get him off track. She only backed off when it was explained we were invited and should be given the same consideration as the adequacy study consultants.

The questioning after our presentation turned into a grilling to distract attention from the flaws and issues of the study. Suddenly it was demanded that I answer in “yes” or “no” terms whether we need more funding. I answered it was a question of allocation. I was charged again as if on trial to only answer “yes” or “no”, which is blatantly ridiculous.

As if rude interruptions and prosecutorial tactics weren’t enough, Senator Titus weighed in and was not happy. She demanded ideas from me if this direction was not the answer. It’s a fair enough question on the surface, but it’s also a clever “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” setup that not all viewing are aware. If you answer her question you can be accused and chastised by the chair for talking off topic, the agenda item, and if you don’t they will say you can only criticize and don’t have any solutions to offer.

I mentioned the merits of the Edmonton plan and Pay for Performance elements, but was brief being cognizant I was purposefully being led off topic to get the adequacy study out of the glare. Dr. Phelps rightly interjected Senator Titus should read the NPRI reports on their Web site to answer her questions.

Some may say we should only have bipartisan agreement and consensus in the Legislature and on school boards. This can only be accomplished by turning our backs to contrary data, studies, and stifling our own views as well as the citizens we represent. As long as we have healthy, lively debate and discussions in our deliberative bodies such as held Wednesday morning, we are in good shape. The passions expressed by Buckley, Smith, and Titus are refreshing and welcome. I respectfully agree to disagree having confidence in the virtues our system and the merits of our positions and supporting information.

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Michael Crichton

Comments