In the grand theater of political spectacle, Nevada’s own Senator Skip Daly has taken center stage, decrying charter schools as nefarious ‘for-profit real estate schemes.’ One might wonder if Daly’s scriptwriter moonlights for a daytime soap opera, given the melodramatic flair. But let’s peel back the layers of this theatrical performance and examine the facts—something our dear senator seems to have overlooked.
First, let’s address the funding myth that Daly perpetuates. Contrary to his assertions, charter schools in Nevada operate on a tighter budget than their traditional public school counterparts. As Senator Carrie Buck, who is an executive director of Pinecrest Schools in Nevada, has pointed out many times, “charter schools do not receive additional dedicated facility funding.”
While both receive per-pupil funding from the state, charter schools are left to fend for themselves when it comes to facilities funding, which traditional public schools conveniently receive through property taxes. This means charter schools must stretch their dollars further, often relying on private funding or creative solutions to provide adequate facilities for their students.
Despite these financial constraints, charter schools consistently outperform traditional public schools. Senator Daly mentioned that “For-profit public schools was a mistake, an experiment that hasn’t worked out.”1 This claim is baseless. Nevada’s charter school students boast an average math proficiency score 11% higher than their traditional public-school peers, and their reading proficiency surpasses that of public-school students by 9%. These statistics are not mere anomalies but indicative of a system that prioritizes student achievement over bureaucratic bloat.
Daly’s portrayal of charter schools as unregulated, profit-driven entities is a work of fiction. In reality, charter schools in Nevada operate under performance-based contracts and are sponsored by school districts, universities, or the State Public Charter School Authority (SPCSA). This sponsorship ensures rigorous oversight, holding charter schools accountable for both academic performance and financial management. If a charter school fails to meet established standards, it faces closure—a level of accountability to which many traditional public schools are not subjected.
The senator’s narrative also conveniently ignores the role of Educational Management Organizations (EMOs). While some charter schools partner with EMOs for operational efficiency, this collaboration allows educators to focus on what truly matters: teaching. Daly’s attempt to paint EMOs as the villains in this story is akin to blaming a ship’s crew for navigating efficiently through turbulent waters.
Moreover, the claim that charter schools drain funding from traditional public schools is a tired trope lacking substance. Funding follows the student, as it rightly should. When parents choose to enroll their children in charter schools, the funding allocated for their child’s education accompanies them allowing public schools to focus on the students that they are serving better. This system empowers parents to select the best educational environment for their children, fostering competition that can lead to overall improvements in the education system.
Senator Daly’s dramatic denunciation of charter schools is a classic case of political theater—heavy on hyperbole, light on facts. Charter schools in Nevada operate with less funding, achieve higher performance, and are held to stringent accountability standards. Perhaps it’s time for the senator to exit stage left and allow the facts to take the spotlight.
Nevada’s Future is Worth Fighting For
Get involved in protecting Nevada’s future. Subscribe to Nevada Policy’s weekly email updates to keep informed about the critical challenges impacting our state.
