Gridlock remains as CCSD reorganization chugs along

A copy of a $3.4 million budget rested on a table at the Roger Bryan Elementary library last Tuesday as a team of staff members and parents sorted through its final details.

The budget process is part of a reorganization plan that shifts more authority to individual schools. But the breakup of the Clark County School District has been anything but smooth, adding even more pressure to organizational teams looking to roll out the mandated changes in time for 2017-18.

At Roger Bryan Elementary, the nine members who gathered represented an engaged group that views the reorganization effort as a positive step.

“Everything’s been straightforward,” said parent Miriam Hernandez, who chairs the group.

“I just wanted to be more involved with what was going on in the school and be more informed on what’s going on,” said Roxy Szpyrka, another parent team member.

Yet one day later, that mood contrasted starkly with the atmosphere at a state Department of Education workshop — where the district and state nitpicked for nearly four hours over changes in the reorganization law’s regulations.

The reorganization, passed into law in 2015, has since been hit with legal and political gridlock between the state and the Clark County School Board.

Among teachers, parents and principals, change is chugging along slowly. But amid all the moving parts, the question remains: Can trustees and the district successfully implement a powerful new model by Aug. 1?

“Could they, or would they?” state Superintendent Steve Canavero said. “That is your question.”

LAWSUIT BATTLE

The empowerment model of the overhaul would decentralize the nation’s fifth-largest district, giving schools the authority to craft their own budgets and have input over principal hires.

But the law’s regulations have come with demands that trustees have found hard to accept, including a consultant fee of up to $1.2 million and an 80-20 funding split between schools and central services.

And just as the district has sued over the regulations, lawmakers have proposed a bill to codify those regulations into state law — an attempt to skirt the legal challenge and ensure the reorganization continues.

Meanwhile, in a hopeful step toward cooperation, the district and state have worked through possible changes to the regulations.

The district’s proposed changes to the regulations include removing the requirement to pay a consultant fee of up to $1.2 million.

Yet the changes, in some cases, do lean toward keeping power within higher-level positions in the district.

One change seeks to remove the school organizational team’s participation in interviews for principal hires.

Another change: the interview process for associate superintendents, who will oversee 16 performance zones composed of up to 25 schools each.

“Most agencies hire their own candidates,” Nicole Rourke, the district’s head of community and government relations, told state board members at the latest workshop session. “This is a change that changes the fact that an outside agency would be involved in another governing body’s decision-making process regarding employment contracts.”

The district also proposes eliminating the 80-20 funding split — which will move to 85-15 in later years — between schools and central services. Instead, officials would “determine the appropriate percentage” for schools by May 31.

Canavero said the proposed changes are not aligned with the original reorganization plan’s ethos — that is, school empowerment. Assembly Bill 469 would make the regulations law and is slated for discussion in an Assembly Education Committee meeting Wednesday.

“I think it signals that the Legislature continues to be supportive of this effort,” Canavero said. “I certainly hope it puts the lack of clarity and ambiguity created by the lawsuit to rest.”

But at a committee hearing on the bill last week, Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky said the district opposes the bill. He cited a need to implement a weighted funding formula to give students in special categories more money as required by the law.

“I’m asking you, work with us to solve these concerns we have as we proceed with the reorganization,” he said.

Contact Amelia Pak-Harvey at apak-harvey@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-4630. Follow @AmeliaPakHarvey on Twitter.