Incentive plan upsets Clark County teachers at Title I schools

Derek Jordan is a teacher who likes a challenge.

That’s why he was attracted to teaching in high-poverty Title I schools when he arrived in the Clark County School District in 2006. His first job was at Sunrise Acres Elementary, and he remembers being told it was not in a nice part of Las Vegas.

“I immediately said, ‘Yeah, that sounds like the kind of school for me and the kind of kids I want to teach,’ ” said Jordan, who now teaches at Edwards Elementary.

But Jordan and some other teachers are bristling over a new initiative that will provide extra money for teachers to switch to certain Title I schools — while passing over those who chose to teach at the challenging schools all along.

A 2017 law provides $2.5 million for school districts statewide to give incentives to new teachers at Title I or underperforming schools. It also gives another $2.5 million for current teachers to transfer to such schools.

New incentive for transfers

The Clark County School District is dangling the money in an effort to recruit for its hardest-to-fill positions — 87 percent of the 1,280 vacant teaching positions as of April 9 were in Title I schools, according to the district.

An incentive of between $3,000 and $5,000 will be awarded in October to full-time teachers who meet certain criteria and transfer into an underperforming school or Title I school with at least 60 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

Eligible teachers must be past their probationary status and have earned ratings of “highly effective” or “effective” for the past three years. They also must not be currently teaching in a Title I school.

That’s why some teachers already working in those schools are calling the law an affront.

“I think the real insult comes to those of us who choose this school,” Jordan said. “We look at it as, if you need a $5,000 incentive to come to our school and teach, what’s your motivation for wanting to teach our kids?”

Jordan also brought up the issue of retention, noting that he’s seen many teachers take such incentives only to leave after fulfilling their minimum required time at a school. But he concedes he’s also seen a few become advocates and remain in the classroom.

Original intent changed

The original wording of the bill offered incentives for all teachers employed to teach at such schools — not only those transferring into them.

Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson, a sponsor of the bill, said his original hope was to build off the $10 million in incentives the state provided in both 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 for newly hired teachers in Title I or underperforming schools.

Frierson said he wanted additional money for those teachers who are already in those buildings, but the incentives were reduced.

“The intention had been at the outset to include all teachers,” he said. “The hope was by the end of session, if we kept the bill alive, we would get some more money allocated toward it.”

He also said he didn’t get any willingness from the Department of Education or state Superintendent Steve Canavero to push for the money.

But Canavero argued there are multiple ways to attract great teachers to schools.

The budget added more money into the Zoom program for schools with high populations of English language learners, he said, after the department heard from districts that the program’s funding was too narrow.

He pointed to a number of other avenues, including using Zoom and Victory program money, that districts can use to draw teachers to those schools.

Strong support for bill

District spokesman Mauricio Marin said the district values its teachers but is just following the law. However, the district did speak in favor of the bill even after it was changed.

The Clark County Education Association, which also supported the revised bill, told members in a Facebook post on Tuesday that the legislation won’t have its desired effect of attracting teachers to work in at-risk buildings.

“The law as currently worded is flawed,” the union said. “CCEA is working to see if there are any changes that can be addressed in this situation.”

And while the Nevada State Education Association supported the bill, it did voice concern for teachers already in those schools, according to minutes of one May 2017 legislative hearing.

“We stand by our position that we stated during the session, which is we’re for the concept of additional funding for educators in Title I schools,” said Chris Daly, deputy executive director of government relations for the state association. “It’s just that it should apply to all educators.”

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