Gibbons dismisses critics of grant application

Gov. Jim Gibbons dismissed criticism from federal reviewers of Nevada's "Race to the Top" application Friday, saying the "opinion of Washington bureaucrats is irrelevant."

The U.S. Department of Education this week released detailed report cards on states' applications for a chunk of $3.4 billion awarded in the second round of the federal grant competition.

Nevada had hoped to get about $160 million.

But despite changing a state law, assembling a task force that drafted the "Nevada's Promise" reform blueprint, and hiring a consultant to work on Nevada's application, the state didn't even make it as a finalist, receiving 381 points out of a possible 500.

Nine states were chosen as winners Tuesday out of 19 finalists.

"Nevada's Promise is a visionary plan for long overdue reform of our K-12 education system crafted by a dedicated group of Nevada business and education leaders," Gibbons said in a written statement to The Associated Press.

"The opinion of Washington bureaucrats is irrelevant at this point."

He said Nevadans know "what is best" for the state, and that education reform will move forward.

Nevada was ineligible to apply for the first round of grants in January because of a state law that prohibited student test scores from being used to evaluate teachers.

The law was changed during a special legislative session in February for the specific goal of allowing Nevada to apply for the competitive grant designed to spur innovation in education.

But at least one federal reviewer expressed confusion over a memorandum of understanding included in Nevada's application that was verbatim to a letter of support from the Nevada State Education Association preserving other rights, laws and collective bargaining agreements.

"The inclusion ... may mean all parties are playing a type of kabuki dance that's big on talk while maintaining the status quo," the reviewer wrote. On the other hand, the state could have been "laser focused" on implementing its plan and inserted the language "as a way to build consensus ... and acknowledge the necessity of union involvement."

Another reviewer wrote that the "out clause" giving precedence to collective bargaining agreements "slightly weakens the power of an otherwise impressive, broad-based commitment."

Lynn Warne, president of the Nevada State Education Association, could not be reached for immediate comment, and officials with the Nevada Department of Education did not respond to telephone or e-mail messages.

Analyses of the reports by five different reviewers shows they had vastly differing opinions on the state's commitment to reform and viability of its plan.

Three reviewers gave Nevada zero points out of a possible 15 for emphasis on science, technology, engineering and math. Two others awarded the state the maximum points allowed.

In another category - demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps - three reviewers gave the state's plan scores of 25, 27, and 28 out of 30. Nevada received scores of 15 and 19 from the other two.

All five reviewers gave Nevada low marks for providing pathways for aspiring teachers and principals, noting limited alternative routes to certification. Out of a possible 21 points, Nevada's scores ranged from a 5 to 13.

One particularly harsh reviewer said Nevada's overall application "lacks a real sense of self-awareness." Not addressing past failures in its education system "limits confidence that Nevada's Promise will transform the lives of its 436,000 students," the report said.

In contrast, another wrote, "The applicant makes a compelling case that educational reform is key to rebuilding Nevada's shattered economy. Nevada's approach is powerful in its simplicity."