- Quickdraw McLaw
- 35 Comments
- 156 Views
- After a surprise decision to eliminate all deans, the CCSD superintendent got a vote of no-confidence from principals. [TNI]
- The Nevada legislature did not provide raises for judges and staff. [Nevada Appeal]
- Nevada AG recommends $25 million settlement in Little Valley Fire. [RGJ]
- Will the availability of alcohol at golf events change after the Gragson DUI? [RJ]
We need to break up CCSD. There are many reasons why almost no communities in the country allow or tolerate school districts of this size. CCSD sucks at so many things, including efficiently budgeting and allocating resources. Breaking up CCSD is easier said than done, however. There are many six figure "administrators" in the top heavy district that will fight tooth and nail against breaking up the district. You'll also get pushback from those who would end up with districts for the poorer parts of the valley. I'm moving my kids into charter schools, though. I'm not going to put up with the nonsense from CCSD. I am glad I have a choice.
Agreed. I came from a metro area with numerous districts. It was significantly better.
Same here.
That trustee needs to be removed, cannot think of her name. She is a racist and refers to male genitalia.
CCSD cannot be managed. There's never enough money and the administration makes bad moves to save money. It should be broken up into 5 or more districts that each have a seperate budget and are accountable to parents.
Judges and their staff are underpaid.
But there is good news we should not forget. Portly Sisolak gave away $600,000,000 to a billionaire so that a new stadium could be built– without enough parking.
Corporations should come to the table and invest (Besides taxes) into the schools. Instead of sponsoring a stadium, become the corporate sponsor of a school. The funds could be utilized to help the students which in turn will help our economy. Just a thought.
A fine idea! My son will be a junior at Coca-Cola High next semester. He'll be taking Health and Powerade, Sodas of Other Cultures, Introduction to Fruitopian History, and Chemistry of Refreshment.
There was a post yesterday about the stadium and Governor Sisolak. It must have been taken down. The point was the Governor put together the $600,000,000 stadium deal from new taxes for the benefit of a billionaire team owner. But he can't find money necessary to fund an already depleted and inferior school district.
It really shows you where the power is. When a billionaire calls for hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds to build the billionaire a stadium, Sisolak and others are Johnny-on-the-spot and not only deliver the goods, but do it so fast that there isn't time for a meaningful public debate. But fuck our public schools, right, Steve-o?
And being taught by his health and science teachers that consumption of soft drinks is the best way to avoid diabetes and ensure a long and illness-free life.
Over at Exxon High School, they'll be teaching courses like "Climate Change is Only a Hysterical Myth" and "The Burning of Fossil Fuels Will Save Mankind". And at Station Casinos Middle School: "Put Your 401k on Black; What Could Go Wrong?"
It's got what kids crave.
Where is all the weed money going?
I would also like to know the answer to this. I guess I could google it. But where is it supposed to be going & is it actually going there are good questions.
So why did Dennis Prince leave Eglet? What was the last straw?
As far as the decision to eliminate 170 deans(apparently, all the deans from the public schools) I'm not sure how I feel about it as I don't know how it works.
If "Dean" is now some fancy term they use, simply to enhance the credibility and viability of someone who used to be called "Principal", then the decision seems perplexing as I assume each school needs a principal(as well as usually at least one assistant principal). So, if that is the case, it's perplexing because, as much as I applaud cutting the CCSD budget and cutting out waste, I assume schools needs principals and cannot function solely with teachers and a handful of lower level administrative assistants.
But, on the other hand if "Dean" essentially constitutes a duplication of positons and duties, and if each school with a "Dean" also has a "Principal", then I applaud the move. Each public school can continue with the assigned "Principal", and we can forget about the "Dean".
So, if that's the situation, there is no evidence that having both a dean and a principal improved any of our public schools. All it would have accomplished is to further bloat the budget of our dreadfully performing school district.
Also, creating a position of "Dean" in public schools almost seems like a transparent attempt to make it sound like our schools are performing much better than they are, have far greater status than they actually do, etc. It is a pompous title which is meant to convey academic progress and excellence within the school system. Instead, spend the money to strive for such progress and excellence, rather than wasting money by creating positons with fancy names to apparently perform work already performed by the principal and others.
I hate to admit this as a life-long democrat, but everything negative the republicans say about our school system is 100% true. I didn't necessary believe it till I saw the objective evidence. The more we budget and spend for schooling each cycle, the worse our schools are performing.
Now I do realize some extra funding is necessary if our student population dramatically increases, and that can justify an increase in funding even if the quality does not really approve. But we clearly no longer have that kind of growth. Growth was huge here in the mid 80's to late 90's, but has been comparatively static since then–at least that is what the statistics suggest.
I love this profession. Where else would you find someone who does not even know what a dean does but still has so much to say on educational administration policy.
CCSD is a shit hole. I love how teachers act like know it alls. Your dumb. You don't work a full year, and you get an overpriced pension, so fuck you.
CCSD are just like the BOgs. Cush bar meetings, money spent lavish like. Nice selfies of Bogs and judges. Trips to anywhere but here. I am waiting for a convention authority connection.
ROFL – Teachers are know it alls. "Your dumb."
I think that speaks for itself.
3:54–you provide evidence of being an unanalytical thinker who just takes pot shots but ignores the substantive issues.
3:41 freely admits they don't know the precise functions of a dean in our public schools, and requests such info. Posters like 4:01 and 4:23 then offered accurate explanations of the functions.
But, point is,3:41 seems to make some accurate pints. I agree with some of what such poster wrote, but not all of it.
But 3:41 raises a critical dialogue that invites, or even mandates, discussion and debate. We have a seriously broken system, and our children will be in peril, but you want to ignore all that, and not address any of these points, because you dismiss anything the poster has to say because they requested clarification of a dean's functions.
If you think that 3:41 is completely wrong as to all the points raised, great, say so. Perhaps you could persuade us that the points raised are largely wrong. But that would need to be accomplished by your reasoning and analysis, not by completely ignoring the dialogue of our broken education system because you simply prefer to spend you time taking lame pot shots at people.
You apparently care enough about the topic to take the time and effort to post, so I am quite serious and sincere when I ask you what you think. What observations, or even suggestions, do you have. This is an issue many of we parents take extremely seriously, so forgive us when we are not tolerant of glibness and dismissive remarks when we discuss our shit hole school system.
I type stuff and grammatric changes it. So, 4:21 is spot on. Grammar boy is back.
3:54 here. To 4:52, leaving aside the entertaining lack of self-awareness in your post, I think you missed the point. My point was not that I know how to fix the district. Candidly, this is something I know very little about (though obviously quite a bit more than 3:41). When I am not smart enough or informed enough to understand an issue at the level of those who actually work on the issue, I try to exercise a little epistemological humility. I was not criticizing 3:41's substantive position on the issue – though there is much to criticize – but pointing out the problematic arrogance or cluelessness it takes to make confident statements on complicated issues on which one has no understanding.
If someone asked what a dean did, I would have explained it as I did at 4:01. 3:41 did not ask for an explanation, but rather admitted knowing nothing about the issue while asserting "everything negative the republicans say about our school system is 100% true." It is a problem when people merely vote with this kind of thoughtlessness; when they proselytize with the same level of thoughtlessness, they should be called on it.
I exchanged thoughtfulness for brevity in my response, and it is probably fair to criticize me for that. But the mix of ignorance and arrogance evidenced by the original post can have real consequences for real people, children here, far more so than my "unanalytical" thinking.
Both 4:52, and 10:56,concede they don't know much about how to rectify the problem, but they both recognize there is a serious problem. So,I'm not sure why they are involved in personal sniping.
They haven't even identified an area they are in sharp disagreement with.
This seems to all stem from 3:41 not knowing the difference between a dean,in the public schools,and a principal.
That may make 3:41 a less than ideal messenger, but it is true that we remain ranked very low,even though the funding keeps increasing.
It really shouldn't be a democrat or republican type issue. It affects us all–and greatly. I actually think that when people debate this issue they become upset, and it then can get personal, because no one seems to have a viable solution and nothing seems to work. And that's very frustrating to us all. And that's also why so many people are resistant to increased funding.
Some small government, and ultra budget watch dogs, may object to increased spending even if performance improves(they will still claim a lot of fat can be trimmed–and certainly some can).
But a lot of folks would not be resistant to increased funding if performance actually improved in measurable ways.
A post from this morning references back to this thread, so I am taking a look.
I don't care if a poster doesn't know the difference between a dean and a principal,no more than I care if that same poster does not know the difference between a french dip sandwich and a toad stool sandwich. But the poster is right(as are others weighing in)when it is pointed out that funding keeps increasing, while performance remains static or even deteriorates.
That is certainly not an original observation by the poster, but is instead consistently reported. But none of that changes how true it is.
And the so-called viable solution cannot be the circular situation we currently have, where C.C.S.D., and others, insist that the solution is simply to keep the funding increasing.
It simply is not leading to better overall performance–at least not according to the agencies that collect and correlate such data, and then release their conclusions and assessments.
That all said, we do have a lot of decent public schools. It's not all doom and gloom.
Now, I don't want to over-simplify, but there does seem to be some correlation between the financial composition of a community, and the quality of the public schools. Our more affluent neighborhoods generally have decent ones, when compared to impoverished and struggling areas. But there are so many exceptions to this that it really shoots a huge hole in what I am saying.
3:41–I don't think the issue is totally clear in that I was informed that some schools have a dean and a principal, while some schools just have either a principal or a dean.
But some poster will know as to whether every school had both a dean and a principal, or whether there is still just one person in ultimate charge but their title has been changed from principal to dean.
But, at any rate, "Dean" is a term usually confined to the hallowed halls of colleges and is meant to suggest great standards of academic excellence, etc.
So, it is ludicrous beyond measure to call anyone a "Dean" who is a leader in our shit-stained, utterly useless public school system with shockingly
inept curriculum and success rates, and an even more shocking, and rapidly decreasing, graduation rate.
Since this was presented as a cost cutting measure, as opposed to claiming they will be replacing these people with much better and more capable ones,
it appears that the positions are being totally eliminated. And that does suggest that there were both a principal and a dean in each of these schools, since it would otherwise not make sense. After all, if "dean" is now just to mean "principal", and the deans are fired and not replaced, who would be running each school?
I hope I am wrong about this because if I am not it means this legislative pack of morons essentially approved funding to create two principal positons at each school, while there had formerly just been one at each school, yet performance still continues to get worse and worse.
A dean administers something less than the whole institution. You have a principal, or headmaster, or chancellor, or president, or whatever that is in charge of the institution. A dean (or in my high school, vice principal) is assigned to administer a school within the larger institution (like a law school dean) or an administrative field (like a dean of students). I am not personally familiar with Clark County, but from what I have read it looks like the deans were deans of students, in charge of student safety and discipline. Principals cannot administer a large high school on their own, so they have subordinate administrators like deans to run discrete areas or functions.
At CCSD, each school has a principal. They may also have vice-principals, and at the discretion of the principal, they can also have deans (or another vice-principal). The deans are assigned stuff the P and the VP don't want to do, so they are the most expendible in the big scheme of things. They all have the power to bump down to a teacher, so not a single dean will actually be out of a job.
High schools should not have deans. Joke.
When I went to high school in another state, back in the Pleistocene Epoch, we had a dean, who was essentially the equivalent of a vice-principal, and whose primary job was handling discipline issues. In those days this meant dealing with a dozen or so perpetual troublemakers. and then sort of wandering around campus the rest of the time. Today, with all the BS that goes on in schools, I think it is more of an essential function.
Only at CCSD can you be a dean without a PHD or MS.
I am like 12:08, having grown up during the prehistoric age in another state as well. My H.S. had approximately 5,000 students with 1-Principal, 1- V.P., and 2-Deans (one for boys and one for girls) that handled discipline issues. The Principal and the Deans did the real work at the school, I never did figure out what the V.P. did other than be a heartbeat away from the principal position should something kill them off (much like the Vice President or Lt. Governor positions). The school had multiple counselors to handle academic issues and a single plain-clothed police officer for security issues.
It still seems that is a very lean staffing level and it worked just fine.
Don't call out a kiss ass, your comment will be removed.
Or, perhaps you could try just a little harder to offer a comment with even an ounce of utility.
You should see Karen in front of Johnson, it is entertaining.
I don't take any major issue with the specific comments from 3:41 and 3:54, but I think there is something of a disconnect.
Yes our schools remain bad and we can continue to blame the legislators who continue to throw more money at this debacle, and we can blame those within the school district who may be lazy, unmotivated, money-grubbing administrative hacks. And we can certainly point our finger at the low quality, and low commitment level, of some of the teachers in some of these schools. And yes, most jurisdictions of our size have a much better school system, and often at much lower funding amounts.
Those, among others, are easy targets. But no one discusses the elephant in the room. The product that we, as a society here, create for the public school system generally sucks. Now, we as lawyers will claim that we emphasize excellence in schooling and do really care about the quality of education(which is why many lawyers in our county understandably send their children to private school.)
But most parents in this community are not lawyers. In fact, most lack any meaningful secondary education. There are very few other communities our size in the entire country(except for a few in the deep South) that have a lower college rate or a lower high school graduation rate.
We will always be a service-driven blue collar community, and a far more transient one than most blue-collar communities. Granted, many blue collar communities generally emphasize excellence in education as a priority and want their children to have a better life than they had. This is true of much of the Rust Belt.
But it's not true here. A huge percentage of parents don't give a shit. And I'm not even talking about the bad or really neglectful parents. I am talking about law-abiding people who love their children, but simply don't prioritize education.
Many of these parents don't understand delayed gratification, or sacrificing for a handful of years so they can have a much better life over the ensuing decades. No. They will tell us they had work papers by 16, and they support the same trajectory for their child. They simply don't prioritize education. They don't see the point.
I am not trying to criticize these parents or act like some elitist jerk. I am simply trying to say they are out in our community by the hundreds of thousands, and it helps to largely explain why we have unmotivated children who drop out, etc. They don't all drop out due to drugs, peer pressure or behavioral problems. many drop out because they simply don't see the point in all of it, nor do their parents.
So, let's stop putting all the blame on the politicians, or on the school district itself, or its employees. There is more than enough blame to go around.