It was all done within a matter of seconds. If you had left the room to get a drink of water, you might never have known anything had happened. Yet it was a major setback to months of hard-fought efforts from local education advocates.
It happened on Tuesday, September 20 at a regular meeting of the Clark County Commission. Nestled away deeply in an agenda of no less than 84 items, there was one brief matter described vaguely as a discussion of “issues and regulations pertaining to reorganization of the Clark County School District.” It was treated casually, dispatched quickly and merited no board discussion. Yet its effect was a slap in the face to numerous parents in northeastern Clark County who have fought for more say in their children’s education.
These local folks have spent untold hours over the past year, engaging in the tedious process of reorganizing the CCSD. What they originally sought was groundbreaking reform: a separate and distinct school precinct for Moapa Valley schools with its own locally-elected board to govern it. These reformers were tired of feeling disenfranchised by the massive CCSD; tired of being unable to make simple course corrections that would ease the process for local teachers; tired of constant battles with the CCSD behemoth over relatively small and simple problems that had common-sense local solutions. In short, they wanted more local control of education, and they hoped that the reform efforts behind Assembly Bill 394 would give them that.
What they ended up with was a lot less. As the AB 394 process of the past year grinded slowly onward, the local advocates watched as their cherished priority items, one by one, were dismantled and discarded by various conflicting political agendas and special interests. In the end, they had precious little left to show for their efforts.
But there was one thing – one precious gain that these folks carried out of the process and held up with some flickering hope. The regulations of the reorganization plan had afforded just a small degree of oversight in the selection and interview process for school principals and for Associate Superintendents, their bosses.
Even that was diluted significantly. After all, you can’t have 100 parents sitting in a job interview for an Associate Superintendent. So the regulation had allowed for a local municipality to choose a single community representative, out of all the schools under the supervision of the position, to participate in the interview process. The final decision was left to the CCSD Superintendent. But the community representative could sit in on the process, monitor its fairness and ask questions.
Furthermore, the municipality then had the option to hold a public meeting where the CCSD Superintendent and his new hire were to be in attendance. The Superintendent could then introduce his selected candidate, explain his decision and answer questions from the general public. In short, there would be accountability for this important decision.
Well, it wasn’t much of a victory, that’s true. Some might even say that it was nothing at all. But the education advocates carried this small win away from the process with care. They treasured it as their only discernible gain from months of hard work. They hoped it would act as a tiny candle flame from which to kindle greater reforms in the future.
But that candle was roughly blown out by the County Commission in its action last week. With most of the rural schools being in unincorporated Clark County, the Commission is the local government agency that can appoint an overseeing representative in the CCSD hiring process. But in their unanimous vote, the Commissioners declined any and all involvement in that process. Instead, the hiring of these key positions would go on wholly without the community input provided for in the new regulations.
In doing this, the Commissioners essentially swept all of the painstaking efforts and achievements of our local parent groups off of the table and onto the floor. In a 30 second agenda item, with no board discussion, they brought the local parents, schools and children right back to square one: leaving them entirely disenfranchised again.
Now, it is possible that there was a simple misunderstanding in this action. Perhaps the language of the regulation was unclear to the Commissioners. Perhaps it was misinterpreted in some way. Maybe they were somehow unaware of all the work and sacrifice that had gone in to securing the privilege that they were so hastily casting aside. Of course, with no discussion on the item among the Commissioners it is hard to tell what their motivation was for taking this action. But if it was a simple misunderstanding, we hope that the Commissioners will consult carefully with involved constituents, promptly revisit this issue, and find a quick remedy to their major blunder.
Of course, there is also the possibility that it was no blunder at all. Maybe there was no misunderstanding. Rather there might have been a more calculated and nefarious political motivation at work here, with the purpose to derail the CCSD reform process and negate what little decision-making influence had been carved out for parents in the regulation.
If this is the case, what a shame! If the honest and diligent efforts of so many respectable citizens and involved parents; who have so labored through a complex, established reform process; can be so quickly erased with a wink, a nod and a flick of the procedural wrist by our own local government body; if that is the case here, then what hope can there be for real educational reform in Nevada?
