July 29th, 2026

Public Comment 1

Comment 1: This public comment targeted the conversation of Developmental Delay eligibility. It was expressed that there is no proven pattern that raising the DD eligibility age would disrupt education or cause harm. The only change would be the ability to have more time. It would allow students to have a better opportunity with finding the resources or services they may need. 

Comment 2: Although this public comment appreciates the work of the college pathways program, they feel that the research is not fully complete. Clark County has been unsuccessful in the Teacher Academy College Pathway Program (TACCP), and because of this, the State Board should request that the Containment of Potential Concerns (COPC) do a better investigation. 

Comment 3: Catherine Nielsen, Executive Director of the Nevada Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities (NGCDD), states that from a 250-response form in Nevada, there are several concerns referencing the disruption that happens due to the current age set in DD eligibility. Not only this, but it was stated how those who need services are placed in a position where they may not be able to get help because of the transitional period. Nielsen emphasizes the importance of ensuring students have what they need during this essential developmental period in their lives. 

President’s and Superintendent’s Report

President Report 

• We welcomed new member Frankie Alvarado, Superintendent of the Douglas County School District, to his first meeting. 
• We also recognized the outgoing board member Tate Else, Superintendent of the Eureka County School District. 

Superintendent Report 

• Superintendent Wakefield starts off the report by stating our core values as a Board. 
• The Superintendent brings up the Nevada Superintendents Advisory Group for Education (NV SAGE) in which it is still needing more applications. 

Information Updates 

• A member brought up a concern of the number of teachers surplused compared to the amount of vacancies which affects the student-to-teacher ratio. 
• A concern was shared about how the teachers/substitutes that students have aren’t always the best and the Board must pay attention to ensure that all schools have the resources that they need to get the school year going.  

Context

 A few years ago, Nevada changed the way it funds schools through the Pupil-Centered Funding Plan. This plan is essentially Nevada’s formula for funding public schools. It gives each student a base level of funding and can provide additional funding for students with greater educational needs to ensure they can succeed. 

In the July meeting, four categories were presented: 

1. How much money schools receive 
2. Extra funding for students with greater needs
3. At-Risk Funding
4. Improving the educational system itself 

The four categories are described below: 

1. How schools receive funding

• Every student receives a base amount of funding, but this baseline can be adjusted by the number of students attending the school, enrollment, and area expenses. 
• With this, a ‘Hold Harmless’ provision is being recommended. This softens funding cuts from 5% to 3%, which means funding would adjust faster if enrollment drops. 
• Ideas are being introduced to make it easier for fast-growing schools to receive money. 
• The idea of increasing education funding first before adjusting for regional cost differences. 

2. Extra funding for students with greater needs

• Instead of each student receiving the same amount of money, some students will generate extra money (funding allocated to the school) because educating them costs more. (English learners, At-Risk students, GIFTED students) 
• If a student qualifies for more than one type of extra funding the school would get money for each one. For example, if a student qualifies for all three listed above, the school would get extra money for all three to help support the student. This is called stacking weights. 

3. At-Risk funding 

• Additional money is given to At-Risk students but is the current formula identifying the right students? 
• Is a fixed percentage flexible enough? 
• A third-party reviewer is being introduced, which will examine whether the current algorithm actually identifies At-Risk students. 

4. Improving the education system itself 

• The idea is to have one statewide financial management system managed by the Nevada Department of Education instead of the status quo, where financial reporting varies per district.
• The idea is to have a smoothing method so funding does not fluctuate too significantly

You can find more information about this HERE.

Board Discussion

• In fall, there will be a summary sent out on the work that they are doing on this. 
• When stacking weights for funding, the higher weight is provided in full, while the second weight is discounted to account for the overlap between the two categories. (Example: a student is an English learner and an At-Risk student, the school will receive the full higher weight and a discounted second weight. This is because resources like tutoring or academic support would overlap.) 
• The concern with stacking weights is that it would move money away from base funding. 
• The concern with stacking weights was brought up. Specifically, the concern was that the formula in the status quo does have issues identifying students struggling, so how would taking money from base funding be beneficial and fair? 

Nevada Association of School Superintendents “iNVest” initiative update 

Four goals were outlined in this update:

1. Increase and align education funding to ensure that resources match students’ needs
2. Refine SB 460 (2025) to more effectively and positively impact school district operations and student success
3. Strengthen early literacy supports without harmful student retention requirements
4. Stabilize, align, and expand Pre-K funding structures

Key points include:

1. SB 460 protects local control and reduces unnecessary compliance requirements
2. Everyone supports early literacy, but there are modifications that the group is interested in. 

The Board expressed concern about the burden of additional documentation.

1. Improving access 

The initiative essentially seeks to expand Pre-K statewide

Developmental Delay Eligibility 

Context

A child can be found eligible for Developmental Delay if they have not gained the developmental skills expected of them, compared to those of the same age. Delays can be shown or presented in several ways such as, areas of motor function, speech and language, cognitive, play, and even social skills. For this board meeting, we are specifically looking at the age criteria, as the two primary age categories are birth to age 3 and age 3 to age 6. 

The discussion is centered on whether the eligibility age should be raised to 7, 8, or 9. The Board of Education has been considering raising the age for the past two years. This was spoken about in the last meeting. 

With the idea of age changes, Nevada wants a better understanding of how many students qualify and how we can support and fund them. 

You can find more information about this HERE and HERE.

Board Discussion

• In September 2024, the first survey was held about this specific topic. The results of this survey showed that 91.99% of those who responded agreed that there should be an increase in age. 
• Going back to 2006, another survey was sent out about which age they would increase it to. The majority of the responses stated they preferred age 8. 
• Ideas about updating Infinite Campus to track students, specifically if they re-enter the system or leave it completely, were spoken about. 
• Board members speak about potentially raising the age to 8 for now, and then raising it higher later on. 

Outcome

A motion to raise the age of Developmental Delay to age 8 was stated. This motion passes. The new eligibility age is set at 8.

Goals and Performance Metrics

Six original goal categories were created and translated into what the State Board of Education said.

The goals being: 

(Original goal → State Board’s interpretation) 

1. 3rd-grade Literacy → Aligned around focusing growth 
2. Pre-K Expansion → Mixed views- interest in access, data systems, and governance/oversight 
3. 8th grade math → HS readiness, access to tutoring and interventions, increase proficiency 
4. CTE expansion → expanding in various pathways 
5. Streamline/Coherence → Importance of feedback from principals, school boards, teachers, etc. Importance of collaborative process
6. Misc. → Importance of tracking outcomes, longer term indicators of success 

Outcome

A motion to use these goals but to continue to modify them was stated. This motion passes unanimously.

Leg. Subcommittee Briefing Documents

• The document given is a guide to what the Nevada State Board of Education does and what is being worked on. 
• This defines the state board, states goals, issues being prioritized in education, who works with the board, and how the board works along with legislators. 

You can find more information about this HERE

Outcome

A motion was made to improve this foundational tool. This motion was passed unanimously. 

Read by Grade Three

Context

Read by Grade 3 is a legislative initiative that ensures all students achieve reading proficiency by the end of third grade. This means that schools will track the progress of students through reading assessments. If the child begins to fall behind, the school then notifies the parent and creates a plan to get the child caught up. If the child then does not achieve the required reading proficiency by the end of the year, then the child may be retained in Grade 3, subject to Nevada law and applicable good-cause exemptions. Good cause exemptions are used in specific circumstances; examples can include students with disabilities or English language learners.   

You can find more information about this HERE.

Board Discussion

• 3rd grade is a pivotal point in reading as students should now be able to read fluently with automaticity and expression. 
• Students may receive support in kindergarten to 2nd grade, as those years would be the most impactful years, and ensure the child is on track to be where they need to be in the 3rd grade. 
• Board members asked questions that were difficult to quantify, such as how many students would qualify for good-cause exemptions or how many would be exempted through alternative testing. These questions were not directly answered. Instead, the discussion emphasized the importance of ensuring that no students fall through the cracks and that the appropriate students are exempted.
• Members spoke about making the score as low as possible so students can more easily meet the requirement. The idea behind this is that members feel that holding a child back would not be beneficial for such a child. 

Outcome

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

Overview of Nevada’s Anti-Bullying Laws, Policies, and Procedures 

Context

Nevada defines bullying and cyberbullying and stresses that bullying is not just someone being mean, but when there is a concern that such behavior can affect a student’s safety, ability to attend school comfortably, ability to learn, and sense of belonging. Nevada is trying to find effective ways to negate bullying. This may include reporting, investigating, supporting the student involved, or trying to prevent bullying.

You can find more information about this HERE. 

Board Discussion

• This conversation is to build a common understanding of definitions and legal framework related to bullying, cyberbullying and discrimination.
• Only about 17% of SafeVoice responses are identified as involving cyberbullying or bullying.
• Safe Voice has a screening system that puts different reports into different categories. This screener is a standardized tool and is not defined in law and is not a disciplinary tool

Legislation Highlight

NRS 388.122: Definition of what bullying is in Nevada

• Includes different ways of bullying including creating an intimidating or hostile educational environment, and explains different ways threats can be transmitted. 

NRS 388.123: Cyberbullying and discrimination based on race in Nevada

• Defines cyberbullying as using electronic communication to bully. This includes transmitting or distributing a sexual image of a minor. 
• Discrimination based on race means any single or repeated act or acts, whether targeted to a specific person or targeted in general to any demographic. 
• Demographics include race, color, culture, religion, language, ethnicity, or national origin. 

NRS 388.13535: What Nevada’s bullying laws do not apply to

• If enrolled in Prekindergarten and behavior is addressed through measures intended to modify such behavior.
• Employee of school or school district against another employee of school or school district. 

Outcome

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

Public Comment 2

Comment 1: The public comment supports changing the Developmental Delay eligibility age to 8. The public comment specifically spoke on how students face abrupt loss in education due to their age. Having an extension would ensure students get appropriately diagnosed and decrease the number of disruptions while honoring the intent of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. 

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