Thursday, June 30, 2022 | 5:53 p.m.
Clark County School District officials again defended themselves from accusations that the district isn’t following a reorganization law intended to transfer significant power from the central office to individual schools, and further, that the state isn’t giving clear direction on where it thinks CCSD is falling down.
Underscoring the breadth and depth of the reorganization law passed by the Nevada Legislature in 2017, known colloquially by its bill name, AB469, Superintendent Jesus Jara said it was a “complete overhaul of the fifth-largest district in the nation” – and that five years on, CCSD is still trying to meet the massive task.
“There have been some public comments made that we have not had any interest in complying,” Jara said at a meeting Wednesday of the district’s subcommittee for reorganization compliance. “In the midst of a pandemic, we have been trying to meet the letter of the law.”
The Nevada Department of Education says otherwise. With some pointed critics on the state board of education, the state is willing to put CCSD into receivership for not complying with the law that gives principals sweeping authority to select teachers and most other school staff, balance their site’s budgets, and procure most equipment, services and supplies.
In response to CCSD board member Lola Brooks’ questioning about official communication from the Nevada Department of Education about compliance, Kellie Kowal-Paul, CCSD’s chief strategy officer, said the last one was a 2018 letter from former state Superintendent Steve Canavero to then- CCSD Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky, detailing six outstanding areas. Only the ability for principals to select their staff remains, she said.
“Prior to the state dedicating a lot of time to drafting regulations that may or may not be lawful, we were not notified beyond [2018] that there were concerns?” Brooks asked. That was the only reference to the state’s receivership movement.
Kowal-Paul clarified that the state notified CCSD of an investigation in late 2020 and asked for information, and that the district has answered, but the state has not replied.
Brooks said that in the absence of a formal list of criticisms from the state, she compiled public comments from state board meetings over the past two years where CCSD’s reorganization was discussed. Noting many of the roughly 150 comments were from a few regulars, she said many criticisms reflected observers’ “interpretation of noncompliance.”
Comments mostly come from current and former principals, union representatives, and members of the school organization teams, the staff and parent boards that oversee campus’ operational plans.
Brooks said it seems that people actually don’t like the way the law is written.
“But we didn't write the law; we are following it,” she said.
