CCSD teacher shortage is a real problem

Arecent Review-journal’s editorial labels the Clark County School District’s teacher shortage a “self-made” and “artificial” problem (Aug. 27). The piece ignores the chronic lack of funding and legislation that contributes to inequities in the state’s education system and limits the district’s abilities to direct staffing to the schools with the greatest need.

Public School Review shows the national average for public school student-to-teacher ratio is approximately 18.6-to-1. For decades, Clark County has fought to increase funding to reduce class sizes. Despite those efforts, the district’s student-to-teacher ratio sits at 26-to-1. This unacceptable ratio will not be reduced through some misinformed attempt to break up the district, but only through appropriate statewide funding levels and a commitment to meaningful face-to-face instruction for teachers and students.

The Review-journal obviously noticed the June 23 board presentation, highlighting that schools with the highest vacancy rates also have higher percentages of minority students. However, the editorial conveniently ignores the discussion during the same presentation that showed how principals used their authority under AB 469 to create additional licensed positions through their strategic budgets. While the Review-journal claims the district “artificially” created the problem, those added positions result directly from principals determining staffing levels at their school sites.

Color us confused, but do the editors prefer school leadership teams making determinations about what is best for their schools, or has the Review-journal determined that centralization is necessary to provide equitable education opportunities throughout the fifth-largest school district in the country? To be clear, what principals are doing by creating positions to reduce class sizes and support academic needs is admirable. But autonomy, in this case, comes at the expense of students at other schools.

The editorial is correct in pointing out the natural inclination of most employees to gravitate toward jobs either closer to home, in more desirable areas or in areas with more external financial support. Unfortunately, the editorial fails to acknowledge that the district cannot pivot employees to schools with higher vacancies, as principals have hiring autonomy under AB 469, which restricts the district from placing licensed personnel based on vacancies and student needs, and the district works to develop various incentives for placing licensed staff at schools where students are at most risk.

While we welcome the focus on the need for additional teachers, the editorial is misleading. It ignores the historic challenges impacting schools nationwide, the impacts of the chronic lack of education funding in Nevada and the limitations placed on the district by AB 469.

The teacher shortage is real, the efforts to support students are sincere and the solutions require a multi-layered approach and community-wide support for the educators who continue reporting to district schools daily to provide the best for the students in their classrooms.