Overhauling Clark County School District will come with ‘considerable’ costs

An ambitious plan to reorganize the Clark County School District by August 2017 will rack up “considerable” costs, according to an updated proposal to create individual school precincts at every campus.

Republican lawmakers who support reorganizing the nation’s fifth-largest school system have argued it will increase local control and cut costs. And state Sen. Michael Roberson, R-Henderson, who chairs a legislative panel charged with approving a final reorganization plan, stated in April that the effort would remain “fiscally neutral.”

However, a longtime Canadian educator hired by the state to craft that plan acknowledged in a revised version of his proposal that the reorganization won’t come cheaply.

“To implement the reorganization as contemplated in this plan, considerable cost will be incurred,” wrote Michael Strembitsky, who collects a $150,000 consulting fee.

As the former superintendent of Edmonton Public Schools in Canada, Strembitsky designed a school model that strips power away from central administration and grants principals more autonomy over budget and staffing decisions.

In return, schools are held to a higher level of accountability.

Strembitsky could not be reached for comment after his revised proposal was posted on the Nevada Legislature’s website early Tuesday. Lawmakers meet Friday to consider the updated plan and a set of draft regulations that would put it into place before the 2017-18 school year.

That’s one year earlier than required under Assembly Bill 394, which Gov. Brian Sandoval signed into law last year.

Missing parts

The revised plan sidesteps citing a specific dollar figure for the reorganization, but includes a vague description of “training and infrastructure” costs.

During a June 16 hearing over Strembitsky’s initial proposal, lawmakers questioned how much it would cost to train all central administrators and more than 300 principals before February 2017.

Public speakers at that meeting also raised concerns that Strembitsky’s plan included no mention of English language learners and special needs children.

Those students remain missing from the updated proposal, but the consultant two weeks ago suggested parents need not worry about them.

“When these programs are part of a school budget, and schools take on ownership, there is a much different regard for the programming of these children and these needs than if it is used as a central service function that is ‘imposed’ on a school,” Strembitsky said.

Also missing from his revised plan: How to address the high mobility rate in Clark County.

Last year, more than 1 in 4 students moved into or out of a school here, raising questions about the stability that parents can expect for their children if each school offers a different set of priorities.

English language learners, students with disabilities and children who live in low-income households do make an appearance in the draft regulations to back up the plan.

Those disadvantaged students would receive an extra boost in state money that would follow them to their campuses, offering principals more discretion in addressing their needs.

“Nevada needs to recognize it costs more to educate certain student populations,” said Carolee Frost, who spoke at the June 16 hearing.

A mother of a special needs student, she plans to withdraw her son from the district and pay for him to attend a private school. Frost, while thanking lawmakers for approving additional support for special education, doubted Strembitsky’s plan would do much to help children like her son.

“It’s a step in the right direction. But sadly, it is not the answer to bettering special education in the district,” she said.

“First, I do not feel this increase would actually make it into a special needs classroom,” Frost added. “Secondly, a weighted funding formula essentially allows (the district) to recoup what it already spends on special education.”

School responsibilities

As for individual principals, the draft regulations would place them in control of selecting school staff and purchasing, equipment, services and supplies.

Additionally, the regulations require Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky to identify any other responsibilities and financial decisions that will transfer from central administration to principals.

Strembitsky also proposes creating a new administrative layer of associate superintendents who would supervise no more than 25 schools and approve an operational plan for each campus.

That plan, which principals must develop and present at a public meeting, would outline the school’s budget and student achievement goals.

A team of teachers, support staff and parents could appeal the principal’s plan, with final approval resting with the superintendent. The school-based teams also would create a list of qualifications for consideration in the selection of a new principal.

According the regulations, no members of the school-based teams would receive any compensation.

That ignores the recommendation of a technical advisory committee that on June 17 unanimously endorsed the idea of allowing school-based teams to consider stipends to encourage parent and community involvement in low-income and at-risk neighborhoods.

“If missing your second job or having to pay day care is a reason why you weren’t involved, then is there a way we can address that?” asked John Vellardita, who as executive director of the local teachers union submitted the stipend idea to the 24-member committee.

Both the main legislative panel and technical advisory committee meet Friday, at 9 a.m. and 1 p.m., respectively, at the state office building, 555 E. Washington Avenue.

Contact Neal Morton at nmorton@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0279. Find him on Twitter: @nealtmorton