School District’s innovative use of funds too much for state

By Emily Richmond (contact)

Wednesday, Aug. 30, 2006 | 7:15 a.m.

Saying they were committed to elevating student achievement, state legislators in 2005 promised to dole out $78 million to promote innovative school programs.

Apparently no one expected $1.87 million of that money to end up paying the salaries of 20 workers and a boss in the human resources department of the Clark County School District.

On Tuesday, a frustrated legislative committee decided it had better tighten the reins on future allocations.

"This money was intended for direct student innovation and intervention," said State Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, who co-heads the Legislature's education committee . "It wasn't intended for positions at that high a level, where there's not direct student contact."

Washoe County also had a handful of administrative positions funded with grant money , Parnell said.

The Clark County allocation also has drawn criticism because the statewide Commission on Education Excellence, which was created by state lawmakers to dole out the grant money, is headed by George Ann Rice, who also happens to be the associate superintendent of the School District's human resources department.

Although commission members did not review grant applications from their own districts, critics say the connection was too close for comfort.

At Tuesday's meeting, committee chairman Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, said he and some colleagues weren't happy with how the initial round of grant funding was handled.

No one suggested the commission had violated the rules it was told to follow. Rather, Raggio said, the spirit of the law needed to be re-emphasized.

If the funding program is renewed, the application process needs to be better monitored, Raggio said.

"The committee here would be interested in seeing this money be used more effectively than what appears to be the case," he said.

The committee on Tuesday recommended that priority for the money go to schools that serve large populations of at-risk students from low-income households. And it said that money should not go to pay for people who aren't directly engaged in teaching or counseling students.

Clark County Schools Superintendent Walt Rulffes said he "wholeheartedly" agreed with the education committee's redefined list of priorities. If the added human resources staff is needed beyond the 18-month grant period, the district will pay for the positions from the general fund, he said.

"The (grant) funds were approved by non-Clark County School District people as a legitimate expenditure," Rulffes said. "That said, we don't want this to create ill will, that this was used for recruitment and not for the classroom."

The $1.87 million for human resources staffing was only a small part of the more than $54 million that Clark County received to promote innovation. Some money, for instance, will pay for a teacher mentor program in the district's northeast region.

Rulffes said some of the money might not get spent because a teacher shortage has prevented schools from assigning staff to oversee special projects.

Clark County School Board trustee Terri Janison, who has been critical of the grant process, said she was pleased the education committee was stepping in to better define where the money should go.

"I asked School District staff specifically, 'If $2 million was awarded to human resources, how is that affecting children?' " Janison said. "I didn't get an answer."

The process of approving grant applications, Janison said, revealed other flaws and inequities, suggesting that state reviewers need to be better trained in how to evaluate requests. Two Clark County schools, for instance, submitted identical requests, with one winning approval and the other being rejected without adequate explanation, Janison said.

Assemblywoman Parnell said similar complaints came from Carson City:

"We learned a lot in the first go-around - if the money is reappropriated, it's going to be much tighter. Programs will not be allowed to continue if they did not show a direct benefit to students, and we will look very carefully at the results."