Las Vegas Review-Journal (Sunday)
To elect or not to elect?
Hybrid board won’t cure what ails the Clark County School District
LAST week the Assembly Education Committee heard Assembly Bill 255, which proposes to change the composition of the Clark County School Board, which oversees the largest school district in Nevada and one of the five largest in the country. In particular, the bill requires that three appointed members be selected by the Clark County Commission, the city of Henderson and the city of North Las Vegas. The number of elected trustees would drop from seven to four, and each would represent a significantly larger district than do current trustees.
Nevada’s most recent Ed Quality ranking dropped to 49th — a D+ — reflecting in large part the poor performance of the Clark County School District. While we all can agree that improving the district’s performance is critically important for our state and children, the question is whether taking power away from “the people” to elect who is managing affairs is the solution.
In a city as racially segregated as Las Vegas, creating larger districts will reduce the likelihood that minority group members will be elected to the board. According to research conducted by the University of Minnesota in 2018, more than 70 percent of Black Las Vegans are racially segregated. Districts C, D and G contain much of the Latinx and Black populations in Las Vegas and are all currently represented by Latinx trustees. Increasing the size of districts gives minority voters less power to elect a representative of their choice. The district is currently 68 percent minority; the loss of diversity on the board means a loss in the capacity to see the equity and cultural dimensions of the many decisions that impact our diverse K-12 population.
In addition, appointed boards hide the politics of who is representing residents and schoolchildren. Rather than being less political, “behind the scenes” appointments move the politics to a different, more obscure place where the voices of lobbyists and elitist organizations are much stronger. The change will mean that the voice of poor children in the district, who enjoy markedly lower quality schools and are suffering as they re-enter schools after remote learning, will be greatly diminished.
This bill admittedly comes at a time when the School Board has been embroiled in a series of dramas that have played out very publicly. First, the board is split on the key question of whether to retain the current superintendent. Second, as President Linda Cavazos, has acknowledged, “there are meetings that appear to get bogged down with personal agendas or personality clashes as opposed to actually getting the business of the School Board accomplished.” Third, many have been frustrated by struggles of the board to approve a reopening plan.
Moreover, the Guinn Center has been critical of the board because it spends very little time on student achievement. The board has not discussed, nor has the superintendent presented, progress on its strategic plan for overall student achievement since the pandemic (except for summary statistics such as absences and F’s awarded). It’s clear that COVID has derailed this work.
However, there is no reason to think that a hybrid board would do any better in addressing these challenges. The district’s core problems are complex — insufficient funding, chronic teacher shortages and a lack of support for the schools in greatest need. But these problems are best solved with adequate funding, which is the responsibility of the Legislature.
The issue of schools reopening has been solved at a national level with the vaccination program, not by governance structure. Finally, Ms. Cavazos, who is just beginning her term as board president, is using her skills to set a new tone and mode of interaction. Board collegiality is about personal commitments to show respect for one another and still disagree robustly, not whether members are elected or appointed.
AB255 may reflect the belief that “the grass is always greener” elsewhere. Research indicates that there is no clear choice as to what governance model works best. Sixteen major cities have appointed representatives, including Chicago and New York. Chicago’s appointed school board has also had trouble with politics and with balancing parents’ and educators’ demands. Ultimately, there are plenty of examples to point to on both sides of the organizational divide of effective and ineffective school boards.
Democracy is messy. District staff will weigh in on all decisions because the board’s choices affect their lives. Parents will demonstrate. The unions will picket. Trustees will get snarky with each other. Still, elected trustees will be responsive because they know they are accountable to “we the people.” Nevada’s political culture is populist. When Nevada voters were asked whether they wanted to give up their power to elect judges, twice they said, “No.” Hybrid boards would make public accountability much less direct. Instead, elected boards are in line with Nevadans’ belief that it is the voter who should have the power to hire and fire public officials.
Lawmakers should say no to AB255.
Elected boards are in line with Nevadans’ belief that it is the voter who should have the power to hire and fire public officials.