NSEA Public Comment: Commission on School Funding #1 and #2

PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION ON SCHOOL FUNDING #1 

Two weeks ago, hundreds of educators in red scarves and face coverings were back in Carson City, lining both sides of the street from the Legislative building to the Capitol to bring attention to education funding. After sustaining difficult cuts last summer, K12 public education is threatened with more devastating hits. Early literacy supports are proposed for a $33 million cut in the next biennium, and $156 million in cuts to class size reduction means more overcrowded classrooms even with the largest class sizes in the nation now. The success you will hear about today from Data Insight Partners from Nevada’s investment in public education is real, but sadly our gains could be lost. 

Additionally, a reduction in per pupil funding moves education in Nevada the wrong way. Federal emergency relief funds will address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to safely open and operate school buildings over the next two years. However, we know these funds will only serve as a temporary patch. Uses of funds are restricted, so they cannot be used to backfill proposed cuts. Before the pandemic, Nevada ranked near the bottom of states in most education metrics. Federal emergency relief does nothing to address this structural deficit. 

Since the introduction of SB543, NSEA has expressed policy concerns about the new school funding plan—the lack of educator voice; no new revenue for our chronically underfunded schools; watering down of Zoom and Victory schools; freezing and squeezing most school district budgets for a period of years; a giveaway to charter schools without increased accountability, and rewriting the rules of collective bargaining to make it nearly impossible for education unions to win a raise at the bargaining table. 

For the last year and a half, NSEA has appeared at nearly every meeting of this Funding Commission to point out that no new funding formula will work without new revenue. While there are significant issues with the Governor’s proposed phased implementation of SB543, its clear that his departure from the recommendations of this Commission calls into question the work that has happened here and the wisdom of moving forward with the new plan at all. 

Backers of SB543 claim that the new funding formula is all about equity. If that were true, we wouldn’t already be hearing the cries of help from leaders in Zoom and Victory schools.

Zoom and Victory schools are located in Nevada’s poorest communities, serve the highest percentage of at-risk students, and are proven models of education equity. Unfortunately, they are also the schools facing the largest budget cuts. This is called inequity. 

NSEA maintains it is completely irresponsible to effectuate a radical shift in the state’s education funding formula amidst a global pandemic, especially as further general fund cuts are proposed for our schools. This is even more true with the late hour changes proposed by the Governor.

Given all these challenges, we believe the only responsible course of action is to delay SB543 until after the pandemic, while we are able to work together on optimal funding and the revenue plan to get us there. 

PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION ON SCHOOL FUNDING #2

In the final hours of the 2019 Legislative Session, Senate Bill 543 was passed with only a single public hearing. NSEA has consistently advocated moving towards greater equity in education, ensuring all school districts have the resources necessary to provide a high-quality education for every Nevada student.

NSEA opposed Senate Bill 543 for a host of policy concerns, one of which was an anti-union end fund balance provision buried in the bill.

With limited time spent discussing such a complex bill, the issue of ending fund balance received very little attention in the overall SB543 discussion.

However, previously in the same session, significant thought was put into how to treat ending fund balance not subject to collective bargaining. The Nevada Administrative Code (NAC 354.660) already states a school district ending fund balance of up to 8.3% of its annual budget is not subject to employee negotiations. Senate Bill 26 proposed putting this language in the Nevada Revised Statutes. After a full hearing on the subject, the bill failed to clear the committee. Another bill, Senate Bill 111 addressed the issue of ending fund balances and clarified that any monies from the state intended for salary or benefits for employees of school districts would be subject to negotiations with an employee organization.

Language in Senate Bill 543 doubling the amount of ending fund balance walled off from collective bargaining was a gross departure from current practice, policy, and previous direction of the legislature.

This provision is anti-union and anti-collective bargaining and could tie up as much as $740 million in ending fund balances while Nevada school districts continue to suffer from an educator shortage.

This provision will make it nearly impossible for education unions to win much-needed raises at the bargaining table.

Senate Bill 142 was introduced on February 23, 2021, by Senator Roberta Lange. If SB142 is passed, the rules for negotiations between school districts and education unions will continue the way they have been conducted for the last 4 years. With the ending fund balance provision contained in 2019’s Senate Bill 543 repealed, the collective bargaining rules on school district ending fund balance would revert to the 8.3% based upon the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC 354.660).

Collective bargaining, a mutual exchange of positions followed by an agreement, enables a group of employees with a “community of interest” to negotiate a binding, written contract with an employer. It gives workers a voice in their workplace and has become a respected approach. Collective bargaining is the most proven system for improving standards and quality of life for working people, including delivering higher wages. When labor and management can come to an agreement on salary and benefits, everyone benefits.

If this provision were to remain at 16.6%, it will make it nearly impossible for any education union to ever win a raise at the bargaining table, further harming educator recruitment and retention.

Creating an incentive for Nevada school districts to sit on up to $740 million is clearly bad policy for educators but will also harm students.