Editor's Note: Nevada's red-headed stepchild

It's difficult these days to write anything interesting about public education. It's heavily trod, highly politicized ground where almost every salient idea has been fashioned into some form of vacuous or misleading campaign slogan. It's also a polarizing subject, with conservatives and liberals staking out territory and refusing to consider an instance where the other side might be right.

Public education's biggest supporters tend to be left of center, but they inevitably find their causes entwined with the teachers union, which has a specific agenda that may or may not have anything to do with the best interests of the kids. Conservatives, meanwhile, want to prune public education budgets and increase "accountability," but their viewpoints often are overshadowed by the roar of their religious right brethren, who insist that school prayer and abstinence education are the most important issues on the agenda. As a result, actual progress comes slowly, if at all, outside the partisan standoff.

Let's start here. Public education is poorly funded in Nevada. All the statistical comparisons show that Nevada is well below the national average in public spending per student. Education dollars represent a smaller percentage of the overall state budget today than they did 25 years ago. The 2003 state Legislature boosted school expenditures by 33 percent, but it's still a paltry sum considering the state's rapid growth and how far behind it was before lawmakers took this step last year.

It would be unfair to suggest that Nevada's public schools are in crisis. We have air-conditioned buildings, many of them quite new, and duly certified teachers. There are buses picking kids up and dropping them off. There are counselers to deal with problems and books and computers in the classrooms. The basic infrastructure is in place. But test scores and graduation rates suggest that we could do better--a lot better. What's missing is a commitment to produce 18-year-olds who are ready for college or trade school--graduates who can stack up against their counterparts in other states where public education is a higher priority.

I'm reading a new book called The Working Poor by David K. Shipler. Shipler, a respected journalist, spent several years researching the living conditions of America's working poor, and his report is poignant, to say the least. Shipler provides warts-and-all descriptions of the lives of the working poor in all parts of the country. He isn't an ideologue. While he clearly sympathizes with the working poor and wishes they were better paid and had more and better social institutions to help them succeed, he does not brush aside or apologize for their faults. He reveals their vices and shortcomings and does not sugarcoat them.

One of Shipler's key points: The old notion that "hard work" will lead to fulfillment of the American dream is a fallacy. Shipler encounters countless people who work their asses off in low-paying, dead-end jobs and cannot get ahead. They barely get by, and if their car needs major repairs or they get sick and require substantial medical care, their precarious perch just above abject poverty could be lost. "Hard work" is not enough anymore, if it ever was. What a person needs to get ahead is education. Education can get you a better job. You still have to work hard, but if you have valuable skills, you are more likely to be properly compensated and have the opportunity for advancement.

The state teachers union has a novel idea. It is circulating an initiative petition to require the state Legislature to fund public education at (or above) the national average. A recent Review-Journal poll shows that 64 percent of Clark County residents support this proposed constitutional amendment. That's great. But the poll question considers only half the story. Approval of this constitutional amendment would require the state to come up with an additional $500 million or more per year for schools. One has to believe that if voters were asked whether they would support another tax increase to raise this extra money, a majority would say no.

Call it the parasite paradox. Nevadans generally like the idea of getting something for nothing. We want it all as long as we don't have to pay for it. Our collective myopia precludes us from seeing the big picture or the long term. Everything is a blur beyond our bank account.

Yet the state's business leaders complain about high school grads who line up in their human resources departments looking for jobs. They say these young job-seekers are ill-prepared to jump in and start contributing. At the same time, these business leaders want to slash education funding. In the short-term interest of making the quarterly report look good, they will forego the long-term interest of properly educating the next generation of workers on which they depend for their livelihoods.

Improving the public schools is the answer to this problem. In some cases, making improvements may not require spending additional money, but most of the time it does. Implementing full-day kindergarten classes costs money, as does creating smaller class sizes. As a colleague, Hugh Jackson, likes to say, Nevada has never really tried to "throw money" at the problem. Conservatives rail against this idea, but we really don't know whether or not it would work.

Consider this: Las Vegans take great pride in the fact that we have the finest casino resorts in the world--soaring above the national average--and we'll spare no expense to make sure we stay at the top of the tourist game. We know from experience that you have to spend money to make money. Yet we're willing to live with an underfunded and thus underperforming school system.

Nevada voters are likely to get a chance to speak up on the education funding proposal. If the teachers union gathers enough signatures by mid-June--and it probably will--the question will be placed on the November ballot, alongside the vote for president. If you don't already have enough reasons to get registered and go to the polls this fall, this is another one.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER