Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Candidate Interviews topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Three finalists interviewed publicly; candidates outline approaches to staffing, special education and student support
Summary
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.
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.
