Commission on School Funding reports funding shortfall and outlines 10‑year plan to reach national parity

The Commission on School Funding told the Senate Education Committee that Nevada remains below national per‑pupil funding averages and presented options to reach what it described as “optimal funding” over a 10‑year horizon. Guy Hobbs, chair of the commission, summarized the commission’s multi‑year work and said the most recent report—filed in November—ran “in excess of 500 pages.”

Hobbs said the commission measured current per‑pupil funding and compared it to national benchmarks and subject‑matter recommendations. “The pupil centered funding plan…is working well, and it's working as it was designed to work,” Hobbs said, while stressing that the state still lags the national average. He told senators the commission updated its analysis to show an increase in Nevada’s per‑pupil funding from about $11,228 (in 2022) to approximately $13,003.68 in the current fiscal year but noted the national average remains roughly $15,000 per pupil. The commission estimated incremental shortfalls that, if closed over a decade, would cumulatively approach roughly $2.5 billion by year ten under the commission’s parity scenario.

The report identifies several policy levers and practical constraints. Hobbs highlighted property‑tax abatements and caps that have reduced tax collections available for education—he said abated property taxes in Nevada exceed $1.5 billion and cited prior statutory caps that limit levy growth for many counties. The commission also reviewed the mechanics of the Pupil‑Centered Funding Plan (PCFP), cost‑adjustment factors, attendance‑area adjustments for small and rural districts, and the state’s reporting requirements; commissioners found more than 500 state and federal reports from school, district and state levels that could be better inventoried and aligned to support a statewide performance framework.

The commission recommended further study and legislative discussion on tax modernization (sales tax base and property tax mechanics), reconsideration of abatements and caps, and continued monitoring and refinement of PCFP weights. Hobbs and staff warned that stacking multiple weighting categories (for example, students who qualify for both English‑learner and at‑risk weights) would require additional funding if implemented without eroding the statewide base per‑pupil allocation.

Why it matters: The commission’s findings provide the Legislature with a data‑driven menu of options to close Nevada’s funding gap, but implementing many of the recommendations would require revenue changes or reevaluation of tax abatements. Hobbs told the committee the commission “serve[s] at your pleasure” and stands ready to provide technical follow‑up.

Next steps: Hobbs and staff offered to provide detailed calculations on the costs of policy options raised—such as stacking weights or changes to attendance‑area adjustments—and to supply the commission’s capital‑funding work focused on rural districts upon request.