Sun File Photo
The exterior of the Clark County School District’s headquarters in Las Vegas.
Tuesday, June 7, 2022 | 2 a.m.
The Nevada Department of Education says it is willing to take over the Clark County School District for not complying with a sweeping decentralization law that is supposed to put more power in individual schools.
CCSD officials acknowledge some shortcomings but say they’re “substantially” following the 5-year-old law. They accuse the state of overreach and spinning a damaging, false narrative.
“We are, as far as we’re concerned, down to two, maybe one last piece of compliance,” Kellie Kowal-Paul, the district’s chief strategy officer, said at a joint CCSD-state meeting in May. “There’s frustration in misinterpretation but by no means open defiance of compliance.”
The Nevada Board of Education, with the backing of State Superintendent of Instruction Jhone Ebert, has been steadily working toward takeover since late 2021 to force CCSD to comply with the law. The potential worst-case scenario is receivership, where a third-party, state-appointed manager would have the power to override decisions by CCSD Superintendent Jesus Jara and the School Board related to decentralization.
State board member Mark Newburn said the the department was serious, and that the state attorney general’s office agreed the education department had the authority to step in.
“The superintendent, according to them, could put the district in receivership next week, but the intent is not to do that,” he said at the May meeting. “The intent is to lay out this whole process.”
Refresher: The reorganization law
In 2015, the Nevada Legislature passed a law giving CCSD principals more control over schools and budgets. State lawmakers followed up in 2017 with the more detailed Assembly Bill 469, which cemented how CCSD would institute the power shift starting with the 2017-18 school year.
“Large school districts are prone to develop large, complex and potentially inefficient, cumbersome and unresponsive bureaucracies that tend to become too dependent upon a centralized operational model where most decision-making is made by central services,” reads the law that resulted from the bill.“Under such a centralized operational model in large school districts, the operational structure and culture may result in an entrenched and inflexible operational paradigm where decisions are made by central services without regular, consistent or adequate examination, exploration and consideration of the particularized, specialized or localized circumstances, needs and concerns of each local school precinct.”
The law targets “large school districts” and define them as having at least 100,000 students. CCSD, which has more than 300,000 students and 350 schools spread over Clark County’s 8,000 square miles, is the sole district in the state to fit the definition.
The reorganization law give principals authority to select teachers and most other school staff, balance their site’s budgets, and procure most equipment, services and supplies. The law also created school organization teams, a mix of staff and parents who oversee the school’s operational plans, including its budget, and required 85% of unrestricted district funds to be allocated to individual schools. Only 15% of dollars can be for centrally controlled and funded purposes.
CCSD’s central office retains control over busing, food services, payroll, information technology, utilities, police services, union negotiations, custodial and maintenance, capital projects and administration of certain federally guaranteed programs, including special education.
The laws give the state’s education department authority to ensure the reorganization’s implementation.
State takeovers, or at least the possibility, are common around the U.S.
In May, Massachusetts declined to take over Boston Public Schools but made clear it wanted improvements after a state report outlined myriad problems with school violence, busing, special education and English language-learner programs, and central office bureaucracy.
In Arizona, the state board of education can place a district in receivership if the district is insolvent or grossly mismanaged . The Arizona law also allows the state board to terminate the district’s superintendent and chief financial officer.
Michigan law allows state “liaisons” to help districts navigate state rules. New York allows monitors for academic and financial oversight.
Steps to receivership
Receivership is a five-step process, according a potential sequence that the education department drafted in May:
• The state issues CCSD a notice of noncompliance
• The state develops and institutes a “plan of corrective action” and appoints a “compliance monitor.” CCSD would pay for this monitor.
• The monitor’s assessments would be placed on School Board agendas for six months (180 days).
• If CCSD is still not in compliance after 180 days, the CCSD superintendent and school board president would have a hearing before the Nevada Board of Education. Based on this hearing, the state superintendent would decide if the district should be placed in a full or partial receivership.
• The state superintendent appoints a receiver, also paid for by the district. This receiver would make decisions to achieve compliance with decentralization and have extensive access to district personnel and operations. This includes the ability to reorganize policies, regulations, budgets, departments and to negotiate employment contracts.
The district must be in compliance for at least 30 days before being taken out of receivership.
What else the state says
In September, the education department said there were still several items “to be resolved:” principals’ ability to select staff, along with the associated language in the teacher and support staff collective bargaining units allowing principal autonomy; and the procurement of equipment, services and supplies, whether selected by the schools or provided by central.
State officials cite a line in AB469 that says the state superintendent “shall take such actions as deemed necessary and appropriate to ensure that each large school district carries out the reorganization.”
In January, Newburn said, “We are probably going to need more than good intentions” to get CCSD in full compliance.
“My hope is that we’re going to be able to engage the trustees, finally, and bring the district into compliance – but there’s also a really good chance that’s not going to happen,” he said. “The district has repeatedly, I would say almost brazenly, indicated that they somehow have the authority to determine which law they would like to follow or not.”
But in May, CCSD School Board member Lola Brooks told him that nobody from the state has asked to meet with board members. Because so much work happens behind the scenes, “it’s very easy for you to exploit a narrative in this manner,” she told him.
What else CCSD says
CCSD admits that principals don’t have the authority to select their staff the way the law envisioned. In a September progress report to the state superintendent, Legislature and governor, the district pinned this on the teacher and support staff unions. “(The reorganization law) puts the authority in the hands of the principal, but the current collective bargaining agreements for licensed educators and support professionals essentially put the authority in the hands of the employee,” the report said.
In a May letter to Ebert acquired by the Sun, Jara said the district had tried “expressly” to have employment contracts reflect the law, but the unions have refused without “substantial limitations” on principals’ ability to select employees.
The district also says it’s “possibly compliant” in achieving the 85/15 balance – it’s close, with an estimated 79% of funds going to individual schools for the next fiscal year, but hitting the 85/15 split will be extremely difficult, according to a document CCSD prepared for its May joint meeting.
Everything else is in line, including the ability for principals to purchase their own services and to carry forward unspent funds into the next year, the district argues.
Kowal-Paul, whose job is to get the district in compliance, said in an April letter to the state board that the possibility of receivership could affect CCSD’s ability to finance projects such as building and refurbishing schools through bonds.
She takes issue with even the possibility, though.
“The Nevada Legislature did not authorize a complete takeover of the Clark County School District in order to resolve a few (alleged) minor issues with compliance,” she wrote.
The state thinks it’s allowed, the state board’s lawyer, Deputy Attorney General David Gardner said at a March meeting of a subcommittee that focuses on the decentralization.
“If you’re looking for the word ‘receiver’ it is not in the statute, but the term ‘take such steps that are deemed necessary and appropriate’ is a large enough term to allow for the receivership,” he said.
Ebert, who would be tasked with final say, chimed in that receivership was the last resort, and the state was readying.
“I would prefer not even to go down this road. If the School District and the superintendent come in compliance, then this is moot. All of this work is moot” she said. “But if the School District does not come into compliance, now we have laid out steps that we would take.”
