[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6285583,"mediaKeyId","2570457-6689a1b5b6e60cc546a60367e497cd56","parentId",2570457,"title","Three finalists interviewed publicly; candidates outline approaches to staffing, special education and student support","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",3269000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2570457-6689a1b5b6e60cc546a60367e497cd56&start=3269&end=3269","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2570457-6689a1b5b6e60cc546a60367e497cd56/thumbnail_3269000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6285583/Nevada/Three-finalists-interviewed-publicly-candidates-outline-approaches-to-staffing-special-education-and-student-support","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6285583-8771937609154bf075feaf6d7e730e7d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775228868&Signature=FVPo1quGUmaQAFGGoV-BahH77MIte~K0AcoWPbOHavrmx~LEbA87WAxiMa33F4tZc9mfaqjDr1NLcdBgFjEapu4BZee0u1Um2fYFUhKYeSPy54n9pFvaJPzi3gD4ipITbWnHEle-McCR1udtmn2x8kZhrrpH~xLLY-aAoG800eU5pSdDeYYZY6B5SGBVKFeBYjQHb21xll0Jwc71fnEIbBLiY1AHHVKmKJ7EcEbx-WrCjgw5dvf7h5OoLNFJduGpeN0KAwC9FZk-5hL3wmFsSF1jMmzvkh1ohyj9l2ElXRifXAcg0Fq9NujckU-s0LGZ6ob6EOYKnf~Px028WNI90A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Clark County School District, NV","date","2025-03-12T05:18:23Z","article","The Clark County School District held second‑round public interviews March 11 for three superintendent finalists. Trustees questioned each candidate about special education, staffing, student voice, partnerships with business and nonprofits, and how they would set districtwide priorities.

Each finalist addressed persistent local concerns: shortages of special‑education teachers and paraprofessionals; high vacancy rates and recruiting needs for hard‑to‑fill urban schools; and low student proficiency levels in reading and math. Candidates described a mix of strategies that included targeted stipends for difficult‑to‑staff schools, growing local teacher pipelines, expanded tutoring and extended‑day/year programs, and clearer compensation or recruitment incentives.

On special education, candidates said the district needed more licensed staff and stronger RTI (response‑to‑intervention) practice before referral to IEPs. One candidate cited state performance data showing a drop in graduation rates for students with IEPs and urged an urgent review of supports and school‑level accountability. Another candidate described experience in closing under‑enrolled schools through community engagement and repurposing buildings for community services while retaining program capacity.

All three finalists emphasized partnerships. They urged clearer goals so outside organizations — nonprofits, businesses and unions — can align with district priorities. Candidates pointed to examples of donor and corporate support for instructional materials and programs, and suggested clearer on‑ and off‑ramps for partners, outcome‑based MOUs and pilot scaling to avoid “initiative fatigue.”

On culture and staff morale, candidates prioritized empowering teachers with autonomy bounded by clear guardrails, reducing unnecessary administrative paperwork, and restoring trust through regular school visits, office hours and collaborative decision‑making.

The public and stakeholder groups attended multiple meet‑and‑greet events tied to the search. Several organized groups and individuals submitted written feedback; board staff advised stakeholders to submit written comments to the district’s Board Meeting Comments portal if they wanted material attached to the agenda item for the March 13 meeting.

What happens next: trustees will review HYA background reports and other submitted materials and are scheduled to act on a superintendent selection at an upcoming meeting. The board has directed staff to publish a deadline and instructions for written public comments tied to the search agenda item.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","CCSD Board of School Trustees Special Meeting - 3.11.25","oneSentenceSummary","In public second‑round interviews, three superintendent finalists—identified in the meeting as Ebert, Scholander and Welsh—answered trustees' questions about special education, teacher recruitment, student voice and community partnerships.","taxTitle","CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, School Districts, Nevada","taxId",13426,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6285587,"Trustees vote 7-0 to keep superintendent-background review public, reject closed-session plan",1088,1725000,2813000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2570457-6689a1b5b6e60cc546a60367e497cd56&start=1725&end=2813","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2570457-6689a1b5b6e60cc546a60367e497cd56/thumbnail_1725000.jpg","/articles/6285587/Nevada/Trustees-vote-7-0-to-keep-superintendent-background-review-public-reject-closed-session-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6285587-47f2d6fdbb42726eea31f31335ade245/orig.mp4?Expires=1775228868&Signature=C5sNT27kPHr-5E9FDwXnsfIMLr6Nxev9UiA1zEDFyAt9G9AZDjLfO30RYk3hmG9fBrPA-IfTtLcdIyWD~kpNM6bMWlsqUTrArejcl0V9U1GRdlWxHcZgWRzW8vF7nieW6gdwtV~rpwC0Q44KqheAw6fRgQwXT62Hzx864xfpcwfUfMsFuL3mLnMoVJG6mXNCb6etzUrTgeLKCBUtnAIo~JtVWKOhFrm9Cy2fBk19mnX2CALRsX8UlMPucTIOurJtax9Fh0UF0-miOwNG4gcRrSIM8GkQi7QWXERpIoXBt51O6sw0f5gpI48hYeNROQ2ul98FtAFq2SJAi7QfehtCLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Clark County School District Board of Trustees voted 7-0 on March 11 to reject a proposed closed session to review candidates' background materials and instead proceed with public consideration relying on third‑party investigative reports.

Trustees debated whether the statutory exception for closed meetings under Nevada Revised Statutes should apply to finalists for superintendent. Trustee John Biasari (Trustee Biasari) urged openness, saying holding a closed meeting “may not reflect well on our intentions” and would undermine trust with the community. General Counsel John Okazaki told the board the reason for a closed session was that \"background information contains private personal and and sometimes confidential information that cannot be made public. So that's the reason.\" Okazaki also advised that CCSD personnel records are separate from third‑party background checks and cannot be discussed in open session unless a subject waives confidentiality.

During discussion trustees and staff described the content of the third‑party checks performed for finalists. Dr. Nancy Perez (staff member) summarized that the firm HYA had completed investigative background checks including county and federal criminal-history searches, Department of Motor Vehicles records, education and degree verification, a full credit report, national sex‑offender searches, news-media and social‑media reviews and other verifications. Perez said trustees had agreed to the use of formal third‑party investigative checks and that the district continued to present finalists to trustees for consideration.

Trustees split over transparency and the scope of a lawful closed meeting. Trustee Biasari moved to open the item; that motion did not receive a second. Trustee Barone then moved explicitly not to enter a closed session to review backgrounds; Trustee Esparza Stravagan seconded. After additional legal and procedural discussion the motion to forgo a closed session carried 7-0. The board later recessed to continue interviews under the public procedure it had adopted.

Why it matters: the trustees' decision sets the public terms for how candidate information will be handled in this search. Trustees said they want both transparency to the public and protection of candidates' private records; legal counsel and staff repeatedly framed the difference between CCSD personnel files and the third‑party investigative reports that the search firm compiled.

Trustees and staff outlined next steps and the legal limits on disclosure. Okazaki advised the board that CCSD employment records remain confidential unless waived by the record subject; third‑party background reports may be used by trustees but certain personally identifying elements are not appropriate for public release. The board also voted later in the meeting to change reference‑material handling for the search process, removing one item from the agenda's “reference material” listing by a 7-0 vote.

Public comment at the meeting reflected a mix of views: some residents urged transparency and public access to the process, while others and several organized groups provided written feedback about candidate interviews and the leadership qualities they sought.

The board plans further public interviews and a formal action item on the selection of a superintendent at its next meeting.","After hours of debate about candidate background checks and transparency, the Clark County School District Board of Trustees voted 7-0 to forgo a planned closed session and to rely on third‑party background reports during its superintendent search.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Three finalists interviewed publicly; candidates outline approaches to staffing, special education and student support

Trustees vote 7-0 to keep superintendent-background review public, reject closed-session plan