Superintendent’s plan to divide CCSD criticized

The Clark County School District, without approval from a legislative committee charged with studying its reorganization, soon will start implementing a plan to break itself into seven local precincts.

According to school principals and central administrators involved in the process, Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky already has directed them to prepare for a reorganization that he initially hoped to have in place before the start of the 2016-17 school year.

His proposal, which is already drawing fire from education insiders, calls for dividing the nation's fifth-largest school system into seven so-called "instructional precincts" based on the electoral maps of the Clark County School Board.

Skorkowsky only last week unveiled vague details about his plan to state lawmakers, who raised many questions about its expected impact on school segregation, public debt and bureaucratic red tape.

High-level district officials, who asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to discuss the matter, indicated those concerns may cause Skorkowsky to slow, but not entirely stop, his timeline for implementation.

"If Pat would try to move forward with his proposal, just as we're starting our process, that would greatly surprise me," said state Sen. Michael Roberson, R-Henderson, chairman of advisory committee that must study reorganizing the district.

Assembly Bill 394 charges the nine-member committee to submit an official reorganization plan by Jan. 1, 2017, with implementation before the 2018-19 school year.

"I don't know why the school district would decide to adopt a plan that at this point is simply a proposal that the advisory has had one hearing on," Roberson added on Wednesday. "Frankly, there's no consensus on this committee to adopt that plan, or any plan, at this point."

Plan draws criticism

On Wednesday, Skorkowsky said that teachers, administrators and community members have offered ideas on how to improve the district since he took control two years ago.

He intends to roll out some of those suggestions in the coming months.

"If things go forward, we could do this prior to the (legislative) implementation in 2018 and do it in 2016," Skorkowsky said, noting the committee still would have to meet the requirements of AB 394.

"The committee would have to determine what things are good business that could be done to improve education in Southern Nevada," he said. "We could move forward at any point in time."

Roberson did not address the actual merits of Skorkowsky's proposal, describing it as a "start" to a discussion on how best to boost student achievement, cut costs and increase local control over neighborhood schools.

The proposal, as outlined last week, requires the first of three phases to start this month and last through December, with appointment or reassignment of seven precinct superintendents who will report directly to Skorwkosky.

The sub-superintendents would have executive authority over instructional decisions, though multiple layers of advisory councils would provide input to drive more locally based policies and curriculum.

Skorkowsky told lawmakers that "money would follow the students" and said each precinct would have flexibility with federal funds to tailor programs for disadvantaged students and teacher development. However, most operational departments — including human resources and employee contracts, maintenance and transportation, magnet programs and special education — would remain centralized within district headquarters.

"This is just another distraction," said Bill Hanlon, director of the Southern Nevada Regional Professional Development Program and former vice president of the State Board of Education.

Like some critics of Skorkowsky's plan, Hanlon compared it to the repeated attempts of past superintendents to increase student achievement and community engagement with performance zones and regions within the district.

"The school district should be broken up, and I don't mean reorganized," Hanlon said Tuesday. "There's just too many students. The district is too big, and each trustee represents something like 40,000 to 50,000 students.

"That's problematic, and how is (Skorkowsky's plan) going to change anything?"

Board retains power

Under the proposal, the Clark County School Board retains most, if not all, of its existing power. The local precincts may lobby for changes, but only within a set of strategic goals that the board approved last year.

The board will have its first opportunity to discuss Skorkowsky's plan in public at a meeting on Thursday.

That troubled Stephen Augspurger, head of the union representing district administrators.

"Irrespective of what you may say about the plan moving forward, it was done in complete isolation with no transparency or opportunity for public comment," Augspurger said.

According to district administrators, Skorkowsky briefed them on his plan — which could cost some of them their current positions — only two hours before he presented it to lawmakers. Teachers and other employees received an email notice of the proposal about the same time.

The district did not host any public meetings to gather feedback from the community about the plan, but Skorkowsky stressed he meant to offer deference to the AB 394 committee.

Parents, teachers and other interested groups will have the opportunity to share their thoughts as the committee continues to meet over the next year, he added.

"I needed to respect the process that was going forward (and) the importance of having the legislators of the committee hear the (plan) first," Skorkowsky said.

Still, Augspurger, Hanlon and frustrated district employees wished he had given them more time to consider the plan.

"Mr. Skorkowsky is a bright guy," Augspurger said Tuesday. "But he's not the only one with ideas of how to reorganize the Clark County School District. He doesn't get to make that decision on his own."

Like Hanlon, Augspurger wondered what impact Skorkowsky's plan would have on student success, teacher turnover and campus leadership if the district implements it — only to receive an entirely separate mandate from the AB 394 committee in 2017.

"Then that represents the second disruption to schools and students and parents," Augspurger said. "No one deserves to be treated that way. Let's get this right the first time."

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