School budget given tentative approval

By Emily Richmond

Thursday, April 15, 2004 | 10:59 a.m.

The Clark County School Board voted 4-3 Wednesday to tentatively approve a $1.6 billion operating budget for 2004-05, including an estimated $300,000 in salaries for three new central administrator positions.

School Board Vice President Larry Mason, along with members Shirley Barber and Denise Brodsky, voted against the motion, saying they weren't convinced the district needed three additional assistant regional superintendents.

"I am totally opposed," Barber said before the vote. "I see no direct correlation between increasing the number of top level administrators that will translate into a corresponding increase in student performance."

Each of the district's five regions has one superintendent and two assistant region superintendents. Clark County Superintendent Carlos Garcia has proposed adding additional assistant superintendents in the northwest, northeast and east regions. Currently each assistant region superintendent is responsible for providing support to elementary or secondary schools within their geographic area.

The three regions selected to get an additional assistant superintendent have had the largest enrollment growth, the highest number of at-risk schools, the most campuses on the state's "watch list" because of low test scores or the highest population of students who aren't fluent in English, Garcia said.

"The most important thing in a school is what's going on in the classroom -- the teacher," Garcia said. "The second most important thing is having effective principals. How do we monitor and support principals out there if the ratios are so tremendous they're not able to keep up with all the schools in the region?"

Brodsky said she wanted to see significant improvements in all areas of student achievement before she would be willing to support increasing the size of the district's central administrative staff.

"This is the message that we're sending to the community," Brodsky said. "Until I see a lower dropout rate, until I see the achievement gap close, until I see better salaries for our teachers and support staff. ... I just can't support this."

Board member Ruth Johnson said she shared the concerns expressed by some of her colleagues. Her proposed amendment to the motion, which was approved, requires district staff to prepare a presentation on the need for the new assistant region superintendent positions prior to the required second board vote May 19.

"We should have all of that information in front of us before we're asked to vote again," Johnson said.

Mason said he was "lobbied very hard" by district staff seeking support for adding three assistant region superintendent positions.

"They could not prove the need to me," Mason said. "It's just a foot in the door to expand it more and more and more."

Mason said he has long opposed the suggestion that the school district, which expects to top 280,000 students next fall, should be broken up into smaller, more manageable districts. But the pressure to add more administrators to deal with student growth makes the argument for dividing Clark County more appealing, Mason said.

The budget relies on projections by district staff that student enrollment will swell to 280,606 -- increase of 12,249 students over this year -- which would mean additional money from the state.

Since the 2000-01 academic year the district has added 57 schools and 55,156 students. An additional 54 schools are slated to be opened in the next four years, including 13 campuses in August.

"We need to start putting in place some kind of system that addresses growth," Garcia said.

The bid for three additional assistant region superintendent positions didn't sit well with the district's teachers' union. Ruben Murillo, vice president of the Clark County Education Association, said by his organization's estimates the annual cost of the three positions would be closer to $700,000 than $300,000 once benefits and associated costs were added.

"Assistant region superintendents do not work directly with students or teachers -- they are simply another level of bureaucracy," Murillo said during the public comment portion of Wednesday's meeting. "The $700,000 would be better spent on retiree health benefits, supplies for classrooms, additional textbooks or class size reduction programs."

Steve Saul, a candidate for Assembly District 1, also chided the School Board for adding to the size of the district's administration. The money would be better spent addressing the more direct needs of struggling students, Saul said.

"What would these administrators do for the 16-year-old asking to take an oral exam at the DMV or the high school students and college freshmen who need remedial services?" Saul asked. "This Board is a steward of public funds and the funds you allocate today were hard fought for ... A bloated bureaucracy is not cost effective."

The district will have a tough time making its case for more administrators no matter how strong the evidence in favor of expanding the size of the administrative roster, said Bob McCord, assistant professor of educational leadership at College of Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

"There's always going to be a segment of the population that's unconvinced," McCord said. "No matter what, they're going to see administrators as extraneous to the education process."

During the last legislative session Assemblyman Wendell Williams, D-Las Vegas, sought unsuccessfully to put a cap on that ratio, with no more than one administrator for every 352 students in Clark County.

If the legislation had passed it would have devastated local school operations, Garcia said.

"We already have people doing far more than the normal workload," Rulffes said.

In addition to allocating funds for a total of 49 new administrative positions the budget calls for establishing a new employee processing center at a cost of $379,773 and spending $560,710 to add 11 positions to the energy conservation program.

The district has been saving millions of dollars annually since its energy conservation program was established two years ago, officials said. Last year the savings totaled $4.2 million. That's money that goes back into the general fund for student services and programs, said Walt Rulffes, deputy superintendent of operations for the district.

The savings from the energy program has also helped the district replenish its unreserved fund balance, which for the past three years has been far below the state-mandated level of 2 percent of the operating budget. The tentative operating budget approved by the School Board would restore the unreserved end fund balance to $31 million, enough to run the district for 5 1/2 days, Rulffes said.

Mary Joy Parise-Malloy, secretary of the newly formed Nevadans for Quality Education, said she came away from Wednesday's School Board meeting encouraged.

"With the little money they've had and the incredible amount of growth, we think they've been very responsible," said Parise-Malloy, who along with other parents of district students organized their group after last summer's legislative logjam over education funding.

"We'll want to take a look at the backup materials that show support for adding the new positions, but overall the School Board's track record in making these kinds of decisions has been very good," she said.