By VERNON ROBISON
Moapa Valley Progress
The Nevada Senate Committee on Education held a lengthy discussion last week about an issue that could be key to many local education advocates.
On Tuesday night, May 30, the Committee heard testimony and comments about Senate Bill 430, a measure that was originally designed to do away with the newly created Achievement School District (ASD) in the state.
The ASD was created by the 2015 Legislative session as part of a series of education reform measures. It was originally meant as a final backstop for recovery efforts in the state’s lowest performing schools.
The 2015 bill called for the identification of schools that had long been in crisis mode and not showing any improvement. These schools would then be pulled from their school district of origin and placed under the ASD, within the direct purview of the State Board of Education. ASD officials would then select an outside charter school organization to come in and perform a complete overhaul of the school’s organization. This would be done under tight accountability measures monitored by the state. All of the school’s per pupil funding would be sent to the school’s governance team to be used, in accordance with the charter, to turn the school around.
Local education advocates immediately saw this measure as an opportunity to bring greater autonomy to Moapa Valley schools. They had long been frustrated in seeking reform within the mammoth, urban-centered Clark County School District (CCSD) and wanted more local control of funding.
Last fall, local advocates worked with state legislators to push for broader regulations for the 2015 bill. They hoped that these regulations would allow local schools to petition for inclusion within the ASD, even though they were high performing schools. Those provisions were never approved. But the work to be included in the ASD by petition was continued by locals at this year’s Legislative session.
SB 430 was introduced by Senator Mo Denis (D-Las Vegas) who was not in favor of the 2015 bill.
Initially Denis’ bill had sought to repeal the earlier bill, do away with the ASD and return the law back to its former language.
“(The 2015 bill) was passed along party lines and did not have a broad base of support,” Denis claimed in last week’s meeting. “During its implementation over the past two years, the bill has been a political football.”
But Denis said that he had come to realize that passage of his repeal bill would be impractical, given the political realities the measure faced. So he had taken a different tack.
“I had lengthy discussions with the Department of Education and have determined that there may be an effective compromise,” he said.
The compromise involved adding options for the targeted failing schools, Denis said. Schools identified would still have the option of being brought into the ASD and being assigned a charter organization.
But another option was given. The schools could enter a performance compact under the existing school district and undergo a reorganization. The compact would put the school under tight accountability standards to improve its performance.
The school would also form a School Organization Team (SOT) of various community stakeholders which would be given full autonomy in all decision making. The team would be given discretion over 100 percent of the school’s per pupil funding, according to Denis’ proposal.
Denis’ compromise also had language allowing for parents of low performing schools to petition into the program. This option would only be available to 1- and 2-star schools that had not shown significant improvement.
During the meeting’s public comment period, education advocates from both Moapa Valley and Henderson spoke generally in favor of the proposal. But they stated that they were not at all content with the limitation of eligibility to only low performing schools.
Annette Dawson-Owens of Henderson felt that this was paramount to imposing a penalty, or at least a limitation, on high performing schools that might be seeking further improvement by being taken out from under CCSD bureaucracy by taking on more local autonomy.
“I’m not sure why we would allow only 1- and 2-star schools to opt in, but not 3- or 4-star schools,” Dawson-Owens said. “Why is it okay for me to be excluded as a 3-star school? And what is the motivation for me to not drop my standards and become a 2-star school so that I can opt in for more autonomy? I think that every school should have a choice.”
Dawson-Owens appealed to legislators that the public desperately wants real education reform. “We are bleeding in education!” she said. “The public is still calling for more than what we are giving them. We are here to support reform and move education forward. For the first time, there has been hope for reform. But we need to not wait. We need to not hold schools back that are ready to move forward with reform.”
In another comment, Logandale resident Lindsey Dalley agreed that the bill’s language left out rural schools that have unique needs different from the urban CCSD.
“Our parents in Moapa Valley want to escape the CCSD policies that are damaging our rural schools,” Dalley said.
Dalley named three examples of situations where Moapa Valley schools were harmed by CCSD policies.
He first mentioned the quick turnover rate of principals in recent years at Perkins Elementary School in Moapa. “That is a direct result of CCSD policies and it is damaging our school,” he said.
Next he pointed to the tightening of rural funding ratios for retaining programs at Mack Lyon Middle School and Moapa Valley High School. He said that MVHS would be losing its Dean and Mack Lyon would be losing its art program because of these CCSD policies.
“We have just four small schools in our community,” Dalley said. “And we have learned that when the elephants fight, it is bad for the ants. We in Moapa Valley will be the ants if there is no option for our 4- and 5-star schools to petition into school reform options. We are going to get crushed!
“To those who would say that our schools don’t need reform because we have 3-, 4- and 5-star schools, I would point out that our schools are good in spite of CCSD policies, not because of them,” Dalley concluded.
In his final comments, Denis responded to these statements. He stated that the original intent of the 2015 bill was aimed at underperforming and struggling schools.
“We are trying to focus on the lowest achieving schools because that is really what is going to move the needle in Nevada,” Denis said. “If we had unlimited resources, we could do everything for every child. But we don’t. So focusing on the kids that really struggle the most is of primary importance.”
