If you want evidence that Democrats have run out of ideas about how to improve schools, consider Aaron Ford’s education plan.
Attorney General Ford, the Democrats’ likely gubernatorial nominee, recently put out his education platform. The first item listed is providing universal school breakfast and lunch. In his proposal, Mr. Ford contends that “kids can’t learn on an empty stomach.”
Mr. Ford has criticized Gov. Joe Lombardo for vetoing a bill that would have funded universal school meals. He wants to create the misleading impression that this move hurt poor students. But low-income public school students are already eligible for free school meals. Gov. Lombardo’s veto kept taxpayers from subsidizing meals for middle- and upper-income families in an effort not to “stigmatize” the underprivileged recipients of free school meals.
Mr. Ford is literally proposing that taxpayers “feed the rich.” Better than eating them, one supposes, but this is hardly a realistic way to increase student achievement. That’s especially true because a federal program already provides free meals to all Clark County School District students, regardless of family income. Despite the full bellies — or, more realistically, the trash cans full of uneaten food — the district’s academic performance remains dismal.
Mr. Ford’s next idea is to “fund our schools,” which the Legislature already does and has always done. “Ford supports increasing Nevada’s education funding to ensure that Nevada’s per pupil education funding meets or exceeds the national average,” the plan states.
To paraphrase President Barack Obama, the 1980s called and want their education policy back.
Nevada and other states have spent decades chasing academic gains by increasing per-pupil funding. It hasn’t worked. In 1986, Nevada spent fewer than $3,500 per student, as measured by average daily attendance. For this most recent school year, Nevada spent around $14,000 per student. Achievement gains remain elusive.
In 2024, the national average for per-pupil spending was more than $17,600. How Mr. Ford plans to bridge this gap isn’t explained. The only realistic option would be a massive tax increase. The Nevada education establishment has long sought to increase property or sales taxes — or even to impose an income tax. With a plan like this, voters can’t count on Mr. Ford to veto tax increases.
Mr. Ford makes up for his lack of substance with buzzwords and catchphrases. His plan pledges to “future-proof Nevada education” and “expand mental health access.” But the best way to prepare students for an uncertain future is to ensure they have access to an excellent education. Empowering parents and students through school choice would do that, while putting pressure on entrenched interests to finally deliver results. Mr. Ford’s plan does neither.
