Keith Rheault is the face of Nevada education. Which isn't to say he's ugly. Rather, it's illustrative of the daunting task before him as the new state Superintendent of Public Instruction. The veteran educator and former deputy superintendent—appointed March 15 to replace Jack McLaughlin, who resigned after his contract expired in January—inherits a beleaguered system beset by below-average per-pupil spending, overcrowded classrooms, poor student performance on standardized tests, scant programs geared toward urban schools and limited options for early childhood development, among a litany of other problems.
This is an addition to his regular duties like safeguarding federal funds, ensuring compliance with No Child Left Behind, assisting a gaggle of schools struggling with student achievement and defending education's budget before legislators. Given it all, the North Dakota native, who came into teaching through a love of agriculture and into positions of prominence—adjunct professor at Iowa State, agricultural consultant for Nevada, deputy superintendent—by chance, never having to interview, is remarkably upbeat. Funny, even.
"When I told my family I was the superintendent, they said, 'Who. What?'," Rheault chimes. "Needless to say, I know what I'm getting into."
What are your top priorities for education?
First, I want to do more for recruiting and retaining good teachers and administrators. It's been proven that if you have good teachers and administrators, students learn better.
No. 2 is to make sure all classes of students have access to resources and are taught the right course work to where they can achieve at the same levels as everybody else. Right now, the black community and the Hispanic community are so far below (in achievement), it just isn't right.
No. 3, with all the No Child Left Behind criteria, I want to make sure we don't, at least at the high-school level, delete the elective courses that, in many cases, are the classes that students like the most. I want to make sure they still have a well-rounded education and don't just study English and math, even though that's what everyone's testing (them on).
No. 4 is to support obtaining any additional funds. There are a number of things that we're not providing with the funding we're currently receiving; one priority would be full-day kindergarten. Many states offer it. When students take full-day kindergarten, they've been shown to be much more ready (for learning).
Nevada students consistently score in the middle of the pack on standardized tests. What's being done about this?
For years, we used norm-referenced tests, which compare how well your students do against those in other states. But they didn't reflect what was taught. The test is still important. It has a strong commitment from the legislature, because (lawmakers) didn't want us to lag behind other states. This year, we moved to criterion-referenced tests and based them out of our English and math standards. We know what teachers are supposed to be teaching and the tests will measure how well they're learning what they're being taught. This was a pretty good shift (in methodologies), but one that should have happened sooner. It wasn't a good practice to base student achievement on a national test that was pretty broad and general. It showed how our students did against all the other states that took it, but that's as much as you could do with it, or should have done with it.
Both critics and proponents laud No Child Left Behind for increasing academic achievement and accountability. But in Nevada, and especially Clark County, it seems like an unfunded mandate.
The federal government has extended the time lines to meet No Child Left Behind by 2012. The only advantage we have in Nevada is that 1997's Education Reform Act got us two-thirds to where the No Child Left Behind Act wants us to be. We were already testing in grades three, five and eight; No Child Left Behind wants all grades tested. Another example: identifying schools that need improvement. We already had the processes set up to do that; our requirements are almost identical to No Child Left Behind. This year, I think we're probably adequately funded, but next year is when I think we're going to hit all the unfunded mandates, with all the sanctions that come with being named a school that needs improvement.
The ramifications of this?
Let's say we have 150 schools on the watch list for schools needing improvement. The state Department of Education is supposed to help them. I only have 130 staff, including secretaries and everyone else. We wouldn't even have one person to help one school. It also puts a lot costs on the districts—they have to convene planning teams to see where the problems might be, and if they don't have money to address the problem, they need to direct current funding to whatever's causing the problem. The answer could be longer days, finding better teachers, etc. The problem is that school districts have to pay for this and there's no new money to help them, yet they're expected to test, provide remediation, have highly qualified teachers, make sure teachers' aides are qualified and so on. We did get an increase in federal money for No Child Left Behind. But based on the new census figures, we would have gotten more money even without No Child Left Behind.
Part of the Nevada Department of Education's mission notes that it "depends upon an effective and efficient system for finance and accountability in leading Nevada's citizens in accomplishing lifelong learning and educational excellence." Does such a system doesn't exist?
Certainly, there are missing pieces. A lot of people don't know that, according to Education Week, Nevada is in the top five states in terms of equity of funds distributed. We rated an "A." That means the poorest districts, like Lincoln and Esmeralda, are compensated because they don't have sales tax revenues like Clark County. So, we're equitable, yes. But we rate a D-minus on funding. This is based on the per capita income of residents divided by how much the state spends on schools. So we have to be efficient, just because of equity rating, but the issue of lacking adequacy revolves around the state not kicking in like other states.
It seems the debate about education funding is, essentially, a Clark County problem. School districts in some states can levy taxes to raise funds? Wouldn't the Clark County School District be better off it could do this?
I wouldn't promote this. I came from North Dakota, where this happened. What you end up with is rich districts, which can afford to increase taxes, getting better equipment and better teachers than poorer districts. There's no equity. The Clark County School District might argue that it's not getting its fair share, because it has the majority of the state's student population, but some local taxes do stay here.
Has there been any talk about pursuing a constitutional amendment to give local school districts this power?
I haven't heard of any.
Taxpayers have been warned that state education officials will be back in 2005, again asking for hundreds of millions of dollars just to maintain current service levels. Pretty soon, the public might decide to close its wallets. What's being done to convince the state's major industries, gaming excluded, to pitch in more?
The state Board of Education voted unanimously to support two initiatives that call for funding education to the national average. It will be a stretch to get there. We did a study by staff and asked what would it take to get to the national average. Projected to 2009, we would have to increase funding 10.8 percent per year for the next four years, or 43 percent, which is a good price tag. The Nevada State Education Association petition goes to 2012, so that offers more time. However, if you go back over the last 10 years, we've averaged two to three percent increase in education funding. It's going to be a tough sell.
The state university and community college system has complained about receiving under-prepared and/or ill-prepared students. Can't the entities work together setting and meeting standards?
The Department of Education is working with the chancellor's office in Reno. We have about five goals and one of them to figure out why do so many students need remediation at the universities and community colleges. We've been meeting on this and don't have the final answer. But part of this is … most of the high schools … we said, "Can you tell us which math and English standards you are expecting them to know before they can enroll without a remedial class?" They couldn't do that very easily. One of their standards was to get a 21 on the ACT test. Well, what does that mean? If our teachers in high school knew what you were expecting, then we could see if they were there or not. There's blame to go all around. The biggest problem: We had two math requirements, up until a few years ago, to graduate and students could take them as a freshman and sophomore. When they moved on to college, they forgot most of it. A lot of them would take a math class just because they couldn't remember anything. Now we require three math credits, so you can take one as a junior and we encourage students to take math in their senior year.
What role does the state superintendent play in shaping curriculum?
None. My job is carrying out the requirements the legislature sets. They (lawmakers) don't tell each district to do things, they tell the state Department (of Education). I'm appointed by the state Board of Education to carry out the strategic plan, which includes compliance with all the federal and state statutes. The biggest piece of my job is to work with the districts to provide technical assistance so they can carry out what's expected. We get $223 million this year in federal money. There is a lot red tape and strings that come with that money. We want to make sure they (districts) know what they can use and what they can't. If we didn't and we lost the money, that's $223 million the state would have to pick up from somewhere. The state's budget for schools is $1.8 billion for next year and everyone expects accountability for that money. It's the department's job to make sure there's accountability.
Are you involved in lobbying?
There is a prohibition against (the superintendent) lobbying, but I'm at the legislature almost every day … really to defend the Department of Education budget. There are a lot of bills every year that deal with education. Usually, the Assembly Education Committee or the Senate Human Resources committee hear all the education bills, and they expect the department to be there to say whether it's good, bad or where might be the problems. So I'm usually there testifying on the bills.
At a recent School District forum, someone asked whether it's necessary to have a state Board of Education. Is it?
The board approves all teacher education programs in the state and it's the only body that can set regulations that clarify statutes. It used to have a lot more power. It lost some of its power to the Academic Standards Council and the Commission on Professional Development, but without it, there would be chaos.