By DR. LARRY MOSES
No one asked me but… One of the more interesting laws signed into existence by Governor Sandoval during this last session of the State Legislature is AB 394. This bill was designed by Assemblyman David Gardner of Assembly District 9. Its primary supporters were Michele Fiore, Brent A. Jones, Stephen Siberkraus, Pat Hickey, Jill Dickman, Philip O’Neill, Victoria Seaman and Glenn Trowbridge, all Republicans.
Article 11 of the Nevada State Constitution makes the State responsible for the establishment of the public school system. It states, “The legislature shall provide for a uniform system of common schools…” NRS 386.010 created countywide school districts and each district became a subdivision of the State of Nevada. Early state law gave county commissioners the authority to create a new school district when five or more school aged children appeared within their jurisdiction. By the 1950’s, Clark County had fourteen school districts with some having only one school. In 1956, the legislature made a major change in the system of establishing school districts.
They eliminated over 208 school districts statewide and replaced them with 17 school districts co-terminus with county boundaries. At that time, the Clark County School Board of Trustees was made up of three members from Las Vegas, one from Boulder City, and one from Henderson. One member represented Mesquite/Moapa Valley. The final member was selected to represent the remaining rural towns. This guaranteed local representation on the CCSD board has deteriorated over the years. CCSD is now divided into seven districts that cross both cultural and physical boundaries.
The original Moapa Valley/Mesquite seat as well as the other rural school seats no longer exists. The Moapa Valley/Mesquite position has been absorbed into District B, which represents 268,000 people. The great majority of District B is made up of inner city people whose educational needs are very different from the students in Moapa Valley. The wants and needs of this rural setting are understandably easily lost in the day-to-day needs of the urban population.
All that being said, one must ask what is the intent of AB 394? There is an erroneous belief that AB 394 is designed to replace the Clark County School District with a number of small independent school districts. While there are those who would find this desirable, the destruction of the fifth largest school district in the United States is not the purpose of this bill. By state law, all school districts have to be co-terminus with the county in which they are located. This bill does not change these boundaries; it does, however, require a reorganization of the district to allow for more local control of the schools within the district framework. Individual precincts will be established under the control of local boards.
While the original version of AB 394 outline a plan for these precincts, the version signed into law merely establishes a committee of nine legislators from Clark County (Advisory Committee) to design the reorganized district. This law also establishes a second committee of at least seventeen members, the Technical Advisory Committee. Two committees so what could possible go wrong here? I have always believed committees are where all good ideas go to die. There are those who contend a camel is a horse designed by a committee. However, all cynicism aside, the purpose of AB 394, as stated in the bill, is the development of “a plan to reorganize the Clark County School District.”
The bill indicates that the need for the reorganization is due to the fact that CCSD has become so large that it is unresponsive to the unique needs of the diverse communities it serves. The bill further states the geography of the district results in some schools being a considerable distance and remote from the centralized administrative offices. The supporters of the bill hope that by creating individual precincts, the district will offer an educational system that is responsive to the unique needs and concerns of the residents of the individual school precinct.
The question arises would it be possible for the schools of Moapa Valley to be formed into a precinct unto itself? One suspects that the four schools in Moapa Valley funded on a per pupil basis could function as an individual precinct. The general population of a distinct Moapa Valley precinct would be larger than that of Esmeralda, Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Mineral, and Story county school districts. While more people live in White Pine County, Moapa Valley precinct would have more students than the White Pine County School District.
AB 394 addresses the funding of the local precincts by stating that school funding would be on a per pupil basis as defined under the Nevada Plan as prescribed in NRS 387.121. If the entire over three billion dollar budget of CCSD is considered, the per pupil funding is just under $10,500 per student.
How much of that $10,500 would have to remain with the central CCSD would be determined by what services the precincts would find beneficial on a district-wide basis. The precincts are “authorized to join with central CCSD to share in any bonding capacity of the district and to otherwise raise revenue.”
One might hope when the dust settles the central CCSD board would become a service agency for the local precincts. The role of CCSD Board of Trustees must be determined by the Advisory Committee not left up to the present CCSD Board. No buearacy will ever make a decision to give up control over anything. The designers of the bill have wisely given the CCSD only one member on the Technical Advisory Committee.
According to AB 394, the committees must be established and functioning by 1 January 2016. They must present a plan by 1 January 2017 and the reorganization must take effect by the 2018-19 school year. While no one knows what mandates will be developed by the committees, one can be sure some change will take place. The issue for our community: is do we want to have a voice in what happens or do we sit back and see what comes of this reorganization effort? Our contact point on the Advisory Committee is Senator Joe Hardy who volunteered for the committee to give the rural communities a voice. Senator Hardy is open to suggestions from the community. The Clark County Commissioners used their selection of a representative on the TAC to appoint Mary Beth Scow; she will be representing the unincorporated areas of Clark County.
Thought of the week…Bureaucracy gives birth to itself and then expects maternity benefits.
-Dale Dauten
