And in response?  The school district finally transfers her to another school in Boulder City.  The residents of which are still reeling from the arrest of a teacher/soccer coach on 84 counts of child porn related acts with his students.

These incidents are hair-raising and are black eyes for public school bureaucrats and the teachers union.  And they help make the case for public school reform and private school choice.

We need a coalition of strong, viable, committed education reform organizations in Nevada.  And they need staffers who can bend enough ears and raise enough funds to actually get something done in Carson City.

Any stepper-uppers?  I’ll be glad to post any/all such activities here!

Gibbons says Nevada needs to become better educated about delivering efficient, effective higher education services so rising costs (and fees) do not exceed inflation and income growth.

Jim Rogers and others need to leave the Stone Age behind and get with a financially responsible, 21st century program. 

If you are interested in learning more or becoming involved in education reform in Nevada, consider attending this conference on Wednesday, January 14.  E!! will be there to listen and learn along with many business and community leaders.

Apparently, Nevada ranks third in the nation in construction costs per student.  Gibbons reminds us of the billions voters recently approved for new Clark County schools and then does the math.  It comes out to roughly $130M per school (though, to be fair, Gibbons says the school district will use some portion of the funds to refurbish old buildings).

There are quite a few things Nevada could do to shore up efficiency and reduce spending.  Including making it easier to form charter schools and create and use school vouchers, so financing for at least some new school construction can move to the private sector.  

Pushing the risk of building the schools onto the private sector naturally creates incentives to keep construction costs low – because their costs have to be recouped by attracting students – but even if they should spend an excess, it wouldn’t be the taxpayers’ problem.

Senator Obama famously shrugged off William Ayers as just a guy in his neighborhood. In a way, that’s right. The Ayers/Obama connection isn’t about the Senator’s social life, it’s about where he lives, politically speaking. Ayers’ Weather Underground grew out of “Students For A Democratic Society”, as did ACORN. Today, Ayers and his fellow “educators” are engaged with considerable success in radicalizing the next generation of Americans. But, if that doesn’t work, ACORN has a fallback strategy.

What does ACORN do? It steals elections:

In Lake County, Indiana, ACORN turned in 5,000 new registrations. The authorities there started reviewing them, and quit after they found that the first 2,100 were all fraudulent. The mind boggles: ACORN turns in thousands of new registrations, and not a single one represents a legitimate voter.

Who does ACORN steals elections for? Ah, well, that’s a little harder to figure out from the CNN report. But the Obama campaign gave 800 grand from its many illegal foreign contributions to ACORN.

There is something ridiculous about this country’s approach to elections. If a Swedish businessman flies in for a one-day meeting in New York, he’ll undergo a retinal scan at JFK. But, if that same businessman decides to stay on a day or two, he can wander into half the polling stations in America and cast an illegal vote more or less with impunity. We have retinal scans at the airport because it’s a national security issue, but in elections it’s ”racist” or “discriminatory” to require a driver’s license, passport or even proof of corporeal existence. The integrity of the ballot box is, ultimately, also a national security issue. ACORN has now registered approaching one and a half million “voters”, not in Utah or in Massachusetts, but in those key states where this election will be decided. They have more than enough to change the result.

10/14 08:21 AM

E!! Note:  If you live in Nevada, you should care about this.  ACORN is under investigation here, too.

The LVRJ reports that the Department of Energy’s plans for a nuclear spent-fuel repository at Yucca Mountain inched forward Monday when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced it will conduct studies and have safety hearings on the plans.  The NRC’s decision to accept a Yucca Mountain application onto its licensing docket is the latest step forward for the project and occurs over the objections of many of Nevada’s elected leaders.

This is a favorite topic of mine.  I’m not necessarily “For Yucca” (the jury is still out) but I am for more public discussion while we decide if it is best for Nevada.  Here’s a little background and what I know about the Pros for Yucca:

The great state of Nevada currently has a variety of problems: a large budget shortfall, high energy costs, water shortages, a floundering public education system, a lack of quality higher education opportunities, and road construction needs, to name a few.  Money is not the sole answer to all, but it is sorely needed.

As recently reported in the Lousville Courier-Journal, uranium is selling for around $73 a pound.  Given that We-Have-The-Technology to extract it from all the “worthless” nuclear waste, the recoverable uranium from/at Yucca Mountain would be worth about $7.6 billion.  (Budget problems:  solved.)

If Yucca Mountain became the site for our nation’s nuclear reprocessing center as well as the storage site for all the “waste,” Nevadans could/would benefit in the form of a lot of highly skilled high-paying jobs as well as lots of cheap electricity from the Nuclear Power Plant (which Nevadans should insist be part of the Yucca deal).  (Job and Energy problems:  solved.)

Some of the surplus money could be used to build a water pipeline from the Pacific to Yucca Mountain, where the power from the Nuclear Power Plant could be used to desalinate the ocean water in our world-class Desalination Center. This should be part of the long-term plan.  And again, We-Have-The-Technology, given the ability to generate enough heat - which a nuclear reactor could easily do.  (Water shortage problems:  solved.)

Then, as a result of the Repository and with the Reprocessing and uranium extraction center, the Power Plant, and the Desalinization facility, we’d have every reason to establish a world-class Yucca Mountain Nuclear Technology University.  And would have plenty of dollars left over for Nevada’s K thru 12 education budget.  (Education issues:  solved.)

Finally, the facilites at Yucca would likely lead to the necessity for a four-lane super highway connecting Yucca Mountain with Las Vegas and Reno (wouldn’t THAT be nice) plus enough extra money to build enough roads to solve all our other gridlock problems.  (Road construction problems: solved.)

Countries like France produce 78% of their electrical energy from nuclear reactors and the EU as a whole gets 30% of its electricity from nuclear reactors…so why does the U.S. get only about 20% of its electricty from nuclear reactors?

Answer:  stubborn, unreasoned obstructionism by people like Harry Reid, John Ensign, Shelley Berkley and others in Washington DC who oppose nuclear power (as well as the amazing facilities we could have at Yucca Mountain) despite the facts and possible benefits.

Here in Nevada, we’re gearing up to shoot the sequel.  It’s called Tax it Backward and its about Nevadans imposing taxes on folks who don’t live here:  the hapless tourists standing behind us in whatever line for whatever show at whatever mega-resort.

The would-be producers of this very bad idea are the usual suspects:  the head honchos in the teachers union and many of the Dems in Carson City.  The extras are the voters in favor of fleecing Nevada’s tourists rather than pay for a tax increase on themselves.  Those against funding education spending increases with a room tax increase can be found on both the left and the right. 

CityLife editor Steve Sebelius thinks we need to raise taxes.  Me and the Muthster, we say no.  Where we three agree is thinking its wrong to fund the education department by taxing people who don’t live in Nevada (tourists) via higher lodging taxes.  Yesterday, Sebelius wrote…

“The Review-Journal published a poll in today’s editions, revealing that 60 percent favor increasing the room tax to pay for education, a move that will raise about $150 million to $185 million per year. ‘People will vote for tax increases that don’t affect them. I would be surprised if it did not pass given the numbers that are showing right now,’ said Brad Coker, managing partner of Mason-Dixon, the company that did the poll.

“Exactly. People don’t mind soaking others for things they ought to be paying for themselves. In this case it’s two easy targets: Casinos, and tourists. 

“How many of those people would walk into a 7-Eleven, fill up a Big Gulp, grab some Doritos and then tell the clerk to charge the guy who’s next in line? Sure they might want to do that, but how many would actually have the cojones to do it in person?

“Not very many. But they’ll do it at the ballot box.

“The point is, education benefits everybody in Nevada, and therefore, everybody in Nevada has an obligation to pay.”

Correct-a-mundo.  To raise taxes on tourists is not only taxation without representation – a no-no per the Founders of this great nation - it’s also bad for Tourism which, might I remind everyone, is a major source of revenue here in Nevada.  

If we’re going to raise taxes for education in Nevada - which I strongly oppose because I don’t think more money is the answer to our education problems – then Nevadans ought to be the ones to put their money where their ballot button is. 

And that’s a Wrap.

Rogers then goes on to criticize Nevadans for not paying enough taxes to adequately fund education in Nevada. 

FACT ONE:  Based on U.S. Census data on K-12 spending and doing a little quick math, Nevada spent $8,926 per student in 2006 which, at an average classroom size of, say, 30, works out to $267,780 per classroom year.

FACT TWO:  43% of Nevada’s fourth graders are functionally illiterate, according to the National Assessment in Education Progress reading test.

Even allowing for the 3 to 18% of Nevada’s students who are ELLs (English Language Learners, meaning those who speak only or primarily Spanish) and who naturally cannot be expected to test as fully literate in English, that 43% is a pretty dismal number.

How is it that over a quarter of a million dollars of spending PER CLASSROOM is not enough money to ensure that by fourth grade our students have learned to read with basic competency?

And Rogers wants to lecture the taxpayers about ABUSE and NEGLECT…?

You can reach Rogers by email at chancellor@unlv.edu or call his office at (702) 889-8426.

As I was cheerfully wading through reams of Collective Bargaining Agreements and Superintendent Contracts, Exhibits, and Addendums from Nevada’s seventeen school districts this weekend, I happened upon a rarity:  a simple, one-year superintendent contract paying under six-figures and lacking the gross excess of perks, bonuses, bells and whistles I’ve seen in some other districts. 

The agreement, between Lincoln County School District and Clark “Rick” Hardy, grants Hardy a salary of $98,923.84 plus a 4% retirement incentive of $3,923.84.  His duties are simply and clearly stipulated; he gets 20 vacation days and 18 sick days a year; he receives the usual retirement benefit for Nevada’s public employees plus medical and life insurance; and he is provided transportation for use in the performance of his duties.

Compared to, say, Superintendent “Rob” Roberts’ gig in Nye County, Hardy’s is a fairly modest package.  As noted by Chuck Muth a couple of weeks ago, Roberts’ salary is $145,335 not including his $1,200 annual expense account and $2,750 doctorate-degree bonus. (Don’t we expect a Superintenent of schools to hold a graduate degree?  And doesn’t his nice six-figure salary already cover that?)

Roberts also gets nearly nine weeks off each year, enjoys some nice travel and professional benefits, and receives subsidies to his disability insurance program.  Addtionally, he gets the use of a spare house in Tonopah (yes, really) plus a fully insured four-wheel drive vehicle and all the gas it can guzzle.  This so he can thunder back and forth between the district’s Northern and Southern offices – which, for those not familiar with the highways and byways of Nye County, are 160 miles apart. 

Roberts’ office says he usually makes the drive to Tonapah once a month for two to three days.  I’m sure glad it’s not a weekly thing – but assuming the district-owned SUV gets around 15 mpg, we’re still talking about roughly 44 gallons of gas which at today’s prices is around $190.00 per trip or $2,280 per year.  Not to mention the cost of property taxes, insurance, and utilities for the district-owned Tonapah house, plus (no doubt) some cleaning fees and maintenance costs.

Roberts’ secretary told me he is the only one who uses the house but, sensing my skepticism about the set-up, added that it is “very old.”  Old or not, one wonders about the cost of accommodations for these little three-day junkets to Tonapah.  If Roberts must make the trip, wouldn’t it be cheaper for the District to sell a house that’s used only three days a month and just put him up at the Ramada for $59 a night?