COMMENTARY: An inside look at a Clark County classroom

Title: COMMENTARY: An inside look at a Clark County classroom By Joe Stanley Special to the Las Vegas Review-Journal July 25, 2026 - 9:01 pm After three decades of teaching in the Clark County School District, I retired having worked at six different elementary and middle schools. I collaborated with numerous dedicated teachers and support staff who were hardworking, selfless, flexible and kind, making the job rewarding. I also encountered a range of administrators. Some genuinely prioritized students’ best interests and were pleasant to work with. Others focused more on keeping parents satisfied and enhancing their own image, giving little thought to what truly benefited students. Unfortunately, this latter approach characterized my final four years at a North Las Vegas middle school, where I taught seventh‑grade math. The school receives Title 1 funding because it serves economically disadvantaged children. Its student body split into two groups: those with some parental support who attempted at least part of their assignments, and the majority who had little to no support and rarely tried. The latter group consistently refused to complete any assigned work, submitting every test completely blank—even when allowed to use calculators and notes. My exams mirrored the classwork, yet the results made no difference. After my first month, the principal informed me that too many students were failing, which reflected poorly on the school. I shared my concerns and asked for recommendations. He offered none and simply transferred complaining students to another teacher’s roster whenever a parent objected. These transfers occurred at least 30 to 40 times each year, without any parental consultation process. When I questioned the practice, he said he avoided involving district superintendents or higher officials because it would look bad. I was puzzled because I never received an unsatisfactory evaluation; my test scores and student‑growth metrics ranked among the highest in the school. Throughout those four years I tried every strategy to help learners succeed. I provided free, unpaid tutoring four days a week after school for one hour. I also offered assistance each morning during the first 26 minutes of homeroom. I spent personal time outside contract hours contacting parents by email and phone, usually receiving no reply. When grading periods arrived, I devoted countless hours awarding “bonus” points to the few students who had done any work, hoping to push them toward a passing grade. According to district curriculum standards, those students should have failed, but I attempted to prevent excessive failures as the principal had requested. Nevertheless, after I tried to make my failure rates “look good,” the principal would secretly alter my grades—without informing me—so that every student who had originally failed received a passing mark. I discovered the changes only by reviewing my submitted grades a few days later. When I confronted him, he insisted that, as principal, he is allowed to modify grades. Conversations with other teachers confirmed that he had done the same to them. After investigating the matter and consulting the teachers’ union, I learned that district policy permits a principal to change a grade only when extenuating circumstances exist and after consulting the teacher. I was never notified of these alterations. I have never wanted to fail a student who puts forth effort. If a learner tries, even when the material is difficult, that effort deserves recognition. If a student chooses to do nothing, there should be a consequence—such as summer school or retaking the class. I believe one of education’s core purposes is to teach responsibility, accountability and hard work. Instead, the current system teaches students that simply showing up is enough, and they will advance regardless of effort. It also shows