State’s economic development plan falls short on education

There's plenty to like in Nevada's new economic development plan, "Moving Nevada Forward."

For the first time, the state is trying to fashion an integrated strategy for growing commerce, geared toward Nevada's strengths. It takes into account geographical differences. And it holds officials accountable for fixing things along the way.

The concept of economic development authorities that do more than use taxpayer dollars to stage high-school level advertising pranks that do little more than facilitate petty political tantrums is a welcome change, too.

Gov. Brian Sandoval has taken center stage on the plan, putting his personal credibility on the line, something that none of his predecessors have done. If we thrive, or if we stumble, Sandoval has put himself center stage for bouquets or brickbats.

But there are a couple of holes in the plan, too, having to do with education.

First, there's a vision of education -- from K-12 through the university system -- that seems severely limited.

"Nevadans must have the education and skills necessary to fill high-quality jobs," the report reads. "Our future success depends on developing and sustaining an excellent and efficient education system that is aligned with the programs that develop skill sets with the sectors that produce jobs."

And while it's true that a good education prepares students to enter the workforce, it's not true that all education is vocational education. A vision of schools as places where we train future cogs in the machines of commerce is a short-sighted and even vulgar approach to education.

In the ideal, education exists to awaken the minds of students to the world around them, to give students the tools to explore that world and then to guide that exploration as young people find themselves and decide what it is they want to do with their lives.

In some cases, yes, that will be to design solar panels made here in Nevada, or learn information technology that leads to the next generation of casino games. But in many cases, education will take students to places that have little commercial application in Nevada. And that isn't a distraction, a waste or inefficiency. It's success, measured in enlightenment.

Too often, officials and business executives in Nevada have seen schools as little more than factories to produce workers who know just enough to keep our neon machine purring, but not enough that they might aspire to something more. To the extent that this plan envisions anything like that, it's dead wrong.

But we've gotten ahead of ourselves. Because while the plan throws plenty of money around for catalyst funds ($10 million), regional development incentives ($50,000), entrepreneurship incentives ($150,000), regional development plans ($250,000) and state small business credits ($13.8 million), the plan contains not one thin dime for improving education.

How, pray tell, are schools even supposed to become places to equip children with the "skill sets" to find jobs in the state's future economy if they're underperforming with the money they get now? And while the report touts Sandoval-led changes to teacher tenure and last-in, first-out layoff practices, it doesn't suggest how Nevada schools are expected to perform with their current level of funding.

Perhaps the authors believe that with a booming economy will come more money for schools, although that's somewhat dubious, since non-casino businesses in Nevada currently pay no taxes on revenue. And Sandoval has come out firmly against efforts to change that, either in the Legislature or at the ballot box.

There's no question Nevada needs economic development. This plan has some good ideas in it. But the state simply will not reach its goal without properly addressing education, both in funding and philosophy.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.