The most pressing issues facing Nevada schools, and particularly Clark County, including the severe educator shortage, the chronic underfunding of education, violence in schools, and continuing inequities for disadvantaged students are very clearly not the result of school district governance models. Instead, these issues are the result of larger societal problems along with the continuing bipartisan failure of the state to truly prioritize public education.
School Board members are the front line of elected officials. They are regularly subjected to personal attacks during public comment, and many school board members have had their safety threatened. After resigning from the Washoe County School Board, former Trustee Thigpen said this, “I had many conversations with district staff about safety. It reminded me of preparing for active shooter drills. At every school board meeting since, the threat level only got higher, school police presence got higher, and the vitriol, hate, harassment, intimidation and abuse by some members of the public only got worse as time went on.”
School board members are responsible for school district governance, yet they are denied the resources necessary to be successful. We all know Nevada is 48th in the nation in per-pupil funding, and that’s not the fault of individual school board members. For them, it’s a set-up.
Most importantly, we should be open and honest about the politics driving this latest discussion of school district governance. While there have been numerous efforts over the years to raise this issue, it never got this far until our colleague Lisa Guzman was elected to the Clark County School Board. Even though Lisa Guzman is a great school board member, her work for NSEA was such a threat to one entity, they filed a complaint against her before she even took office. Last session, former Speaker Jason Frierson mentioned he only introduced his hybrid school board bill on behalf of this same organization. And that’s where AB175 comes from. It’s not about professionalism or student achievement, it’s about triangulation and political power. Take, for example, the contract of Superintendent Jara. The same organization who helped rally support to save the Superintendent after 4 trustees voted to not renew is now running a public campaign of no-confidence. But let’s be honest, the 75% of Clark teachers surveyed now saying they don’t have confidence in the Superintendent would have given the exact same response in the fall of 2021.
Likewise, if AB175 doesn’t satisfy this group’s political needs, they will be right back here in 2 years to grant voting rights to the appointed members. More political games.
NSEA, on the other hand, has consistently advocated for the inclusion of educator voice in the decisions that impact us. That’s why we have advocated school board reforms like allowing active educators to participate on their school boards. NSEA believes incorporating educator voice onto school boards would go a long way to increase the professionalism, productivity, and standing of our school boards, and it would signal a genuine appreciation for Nevada teachers.
