October 7th, 2026

Regulation Hearing

• Regulation Hearing for R112-26 on proposed changes to NAC 391 regarding paraprofessional exams 

Context 

• NAC 391 is about paraprofessional exams, which is an assessment that is used on practicing paraprofessionals that measures your skills and knowledge in math, writing, reading and your ability to apply these skills while assisting in a classroom. 
• R112-26 is to amend NAC 391 to change a few things. This includes changing some of the language used within the regulation and lowering the reading and writing score from 332 to 329 and a math score of 334. 

You can find the exact language HERE and HERE.

Outcome

A motion was raised to adopt the proposed amendment of adjusting reading and writing to 329. This was seconded and moved. 

Why It Matters

Paraprofessionals help support students in the classroom. Changes to exam requirements can affect the qualifications needed for these roles and access to classroom support.

1. Exams Regulation hearing for R042-26 on proposed changes to NAC 391 regarding educator growth goals

Context

• R042-26 aligns with Nevada’s administrative regulations with Senate Bill 460 (SB 460), passed during the 2025 legislative session.
• R042-26 updates the terminology from “Student Learning Goals” to “Goals for Educational Growth.”
• R042-26 explains how standardized assessment results, including SBAC and ACT results, are used to establish and evaluate student growth goals for certain teachers.
• It explains how prior-year test results and other approved assessments may be used to measure student growth when current results are unavailable.

You can find the exact language HERE. 

Board Discussion

• A Board member asked how NDE would ensure comparable treatment across tested and nontested student groups? → Superintendent Wakefield states how the Board of Education wants to create maximum flexibility so there isn’t one more important than the other. The law helps educators see if teaching and learning is happening in the classrooms. 
• It was then asked what safeguards prevent incomplete or non-comparable data from being treated as evidence of educator performance? → R042-26 provides course embedded examinations and allows flexibility in courses that don’t necessarily have comparative tests. 
• Member Hughes is concerned that there are not consistent practices that are happening and understands the complications when trying to standardize this. With this, Member Hughes states how the Board of Education has consistently watered down the bar, which is something teachers do not want. 

Outcome

It was moved to table this regulation until the next meeting. This was seconded. This regulation will be brought up at the next State Board of Education Meeting.

Why It Matters

Educator growth goals help evaluate teaching and student learning. Clear and consistent guidelines can help ensure educators are evaluated fairly while accounting for differences in how students learn.

1. R020-26 on proposed changes to NAC 389 regarding updates to the uniform grading scale. 

Context

• R020-26 proposes changes to Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 389.6625, which governs the uniform grading scale for students in grades 9-12 in Nevada public schools. 
• The proposed regulation assigns a 0.050 weighted value to dual credit courses completed with a grade of A, B, C, or D, similar to Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses.
• The dual credit weighting applies to courses in core academic subjects, career and technical education, or subjects for which AP courses are offered.
• The proposed changes specify that dual credit weighting applies beginning with the graduating class of 2031.
• The regulation also addresses how grade point averages are calculated and how grades and course weights are assigned when students transfer from out-of-state or private high schools.

You can find the exact language HERE. 

Board Discussion

• Member Carvalo asks about NRS 389.007 and how it does not specifically say that noncore dual credit classes could not have that weight, so with this being said can we streamline and give dual credit courses all the same weight whether they are core classes or not? → We want to focus on core classes and not grade bump every class. 

There are two voting options before the Board of Education: 

1. Limiting the 0.5 weighted GPA to AP core courses and CTE in which would begin with the 2031 cohort. 
2. R020-26 in its classical iteration which adds the language that for completion for dual credit courses with a grade of A, B, C, or D must be added to the value otherwise prescribed for subsection 1. 

• Option two would allow for the broader application of dual credit. 
• Member Hughes stated that we should find the bar of rigor. An example being that a student in a rigorous statistics class, should get more than a student in a pottery class. 
• Member Hughes also stated that many students want to be in a dual enrollment class so they can 1. Get college credit, and 2. It reduces financial burdens for them.

Outcome

A motion was made to move forward with R020-26 with the first option, specifically limiting the 0.5 weighted GPA to API core courses and CTE in which would begin with the 2031 cohort. This was seconded. This was moved and adopted.

Why It Matters

GPA weighting can affect students’ grade point averages and how their academic achievements are represented. These changes are especially important for students planning to take dual-credit courses and prepare for college.

1. R163-26 on proposed changes to NAC 387 and 389 regarding reporting provisions. 

Context

• R163-26 is a continuing effort to help identify duplicative reporting burdens or different things in our system that could be used to clean up the burden on districts without an impact for database decision making or accountability purposes. 

You can find the exact language HERE. 

Board Discussion

• It was asked whether the items included on the regulation will be eliminated or reported somewhere else. → To clarify, the items will be reported elsewhere. 
• The superintendent brought up how SB460 gave waiver authority, in which means if something is found to be duplicative or redundant the Board of Education can provide justification in which it can waive such item until the next legislative session so it can be fully out of law.  

Outcome

A motion was made to adopt R163-26. This motion was seconded. This regulation has now been adopted. 

Why It Matters

Reducing duplicative reporting requirements can give school districts more time to focus on students while maintaining the information needed for accountability and decision-making.

State Board of Education Meeting

Public Comment 1: Becky Hall, from the mining association, spoke about the mining resources that are here in our community. 

Public Comment 2: Public comment also highlighted opportunities to introduce students to modern mining to how modern mining works. With this, it was shared about the many opportunities that are given along with modern mining such as working with communities, and how others can see how technology is changing the community. 

President’s and Superintendent’s Report

Superintendent’s Report 

Superintendent Wakefield first spoke about his main four priorities. 

1. Launch the STIP 
2. Activate NDE Leadership
3. Strengthen Fiscal Stewardship 
4. Prepare for 2027 legislative session

• Superintendent Wakefield spotlights the efforts being taken to ensure there’s a strong foundation of literacy. With this, there are statewide literacy convenings to ensure there is strong instruction being delivered to all students, everyday. 
• The superintendent brought up the Board of Education legislative priorities. With this, there are five policy BDRs: 

• Strong foundations

Create a vision for excellence but also provide high quality materials that help educators serve students. 

• Empowering pathways 

Help NDE expand access to technical education, dual credit, and work-based learning across the state. This will also ensure each student has a comprehensive graduation plan. 

• Equipped educators and leaders 

Help the department fulfill the vision for a coherent, coordinated, and strategically aligned system of professional learning across the state and ensure it is streamlined. Developing strategies that support the retention of our workforce. 

• Graduation Success

To create a comprehensive plan to help students in grades 7-12.

• Aligned systems 

To help ensure districts have one clear strategic plan and to hold themselves to. It will also make reporting more efficient and streamline work. 

You can find more information about the Superintendent’s Report HERE.

Outcome

No formal action was taken during this portion of the meeting.

Legislative Subcommittee Report 

Context

• Since February, the subcommittee has met four times to develop a pathway for the Board of Education to have formal representation at the legislature. 
• The subcommittee presents two items in which is a draft policy rubric and draft process of engagement between the Nevada Department of Education and the state board. These both will be linked below. 

You can find more information about the Legislative Subcommittee Report HERE and HERE. 

Board Discussion

• Member Hughes asks about what priorities or proactive measures → there’s a briefing document that will help make others aware of what the priorities are. 
• It was asked if there was a limit or maximum of emergency meetings or board meetings per year → there is a requirement to meet nine times a year, and there is no maximum.  

Outcome

A motion was made to approve both tools, and to seek a presentation before each of the Nevada Assembly and Senate Education Committees. The motion was seconded and passed.

Why It Matters

A clearer process for communication between the State Board and the Legislature can help education priorities be represented during policymaking and future legislative sessions.

Executive Order 26-03 and Nevada Department of Education Guidance Memoranda 26-16

Context

• Executive Order 2026-003 was issued by Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo. It directs executive branch agencies, departments, boards, and commissions to review existing regulations to identify those that may be outdated, unclear, inefficient, or unnecessarily burdensome. 
• The order requires agencies to hold public hearings to gather stakeholder feedback and consider recommendations for revising, clarifying, or removing regulations.
• After gathering public input, agencies must review the regulations discussed and submit a report. The report must include recommendations for improving regulations and a prioritized list of five to ten regulations for consideration. 
• Nevada Department of Education Guidance Memorandum 26-16 explains how the regulatory review applies to Nevada’s education system. It invites school districts, families, education partners, and other community members to recommend education regulations that should be clarified, streamlined, or removed. 
• The memorandum also includes an updated index of Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) education regulations. This index helps readers distinguish between regulations that have been formally incorporated into the published code, those that are legally enacted but not yet incorporated, and those still being drafted or reviewed.

You can find more information about Executive Order 26-03 and the Guidance Memoranda HERE, HERE and HERE. 

Outcome

No formal action was taken during this portion of the meeting.

Why It Matters

Reviewing education regulations can help identify rules that are outdated, unclear, or unnecessarily burdensome. Public feedback gives educators, families, and communities an opportunity to share how these regulations affect them.

Nevada Education Performance Data Presentation for School Year 2025-2026

Context

• This meeting was the first meeting out of three around 2025-2026 performance data presentation.
• The Nevada Department of Education presented statewide education performance data for the 2025–2026 school year to help the State Board of Education understand student achievement and school performance across Nevada. 
• The presentation included results from the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBAC), Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) star ratings, and the new Nevada District Performance Framework (NDPF). 
• SBAC assessments measure student proficiency in English language arts and mathematics. The results help identify areas where students are meeting grade-level expectations and where additional academic support may be needed. 
• The NSPF rates eligible public schools on a one-to-five-star scale using multiple measures, including academic achievement, student growth, chronic absenteeism, and graduation rates. These ratings help families and educators understand school performance. 
• The NDPF, established under Senate Bill 460 during the 2025 legislative session, expands accountability by examining how school districts support schools and student outcomes. It considers factors such as educator staffing, access to high-quality instructional materials, college and career readiness opportunities, and financial stability. 

Board Discussion

• Member Neal asks if there’s anything parents can look at so they can understand all of this? → Technically, yes but there is a lot more work to do on that front. Everything is transparent but the Board of Education wants to prioritize education.
• It was asked if districts came back with any commentary → There’s a window of time that allows districts to see what their ratings are looking like. Everything is still a work in progress. 

Outcome

No formal action was taken during this portion of the meeting.

Why It Matters

Statewide performance data helps the Board identify student achievement trends, understand where schools may need additional support, and evaluate how Nevada’s education system is serving students.

Read by Grade 3: Alternative Assessment Considerations

Context

• Read by Grade 3 (RBG3) is a Nevada literacy initiative designed to help students develop strong reading skills by the end of third grade. It provides early reading instruction and interventions for students who are reading below grade level. 

• The Nevada State Board of Education reviewed considerations for selecting an alternative standardized reading assessment to be used alongside the state’s uniform reading examination. 

• The alternative assessment is intended to provide another way to measure students’ reading proficiency. The Department considered factors such as students’ specific reading skill gaps, instructional priorities, and feedback from educators and other stakeholders. 

• Assessment options discussed included MAP, i-Ready, and other assessments that could be evaluated through an additional selection process. The Board of Education consideration included how the assessment would fit into existing district testing practices. 

• The assessment selection is important because Nevada is preparing for future third-grade reading proficiency and grade-retention requirements. Under the timeline discussed, the 2028–2029 school year is expected to provide the first assessment results used in retention decisions.

• The Board of Education will not be approving an alternative assessment within this meeting but instead inform their next steps. 

Within the meeting three options were presented:

1. Administer the iReady and Map

This means if students have taken iReady they then take Map (vice versa) and use the same passing score. This would then provide a standardized and reliable measure but not provide different information.

1. Explore using the state assessment as an alternative assessment. 

This is also standardized and reliable but this will be dependent when the state will receive such data. Does it actually provide the information we need? 

1. Assemble a task force 

The task force would examine current additional assessments in place and other available open source assessments that are standardized, measure third grade proficiently.

Board Discussion

• President Dockweiler prefers option three. 
• It was asked if multiple assessments can be selected → this would be reasonable to explore. 
• Member Hughes is concerned about the potential of over testing students and the burden on administrators. 

Outcome

No formal action taken. There was a consensus on option three for the future planning. 

Why It Matters

Early reading skills are essential to students’ continued learning. Choosing an appropriate assessment can help Nevada measure reading proficiency while considering existing district practices and the potential burden of additional testing.

 Education Service Center Projects and Service Delivery

Context

• Education Service Centers (ESCs) are being discussed as part of Nevada’s broader efforts to improve the education system and support school districts.
• The discussion focused on how ESC projects and service delivery connect to the Statewide Plan for the Improvement of Schools (STIP).
• The Board of Education considered the importance of creating aligned systems and establishing the conditions needed to support school improvement.

Board Discussion

• Member Hughes asked about the Service Centers and its long term configurations →  It would require legislative action and discussion which is welcomed. 

Outcome

No formal action taken. 

Why It Matters

Education Service Centers aim to strengthen support for school districts, improve efficiency, and help schools access resources. Better coordination can help districts focus more effectively on school improvement and student outcomes.

You can find the meeting materials HERE, the agenda HERE, and the video recording HERE. The next meeting will be held on November 4th at 9:00 AM.