June 26th, 2026

Introduction 

President Dr. Katherine DockWeiler welcomed me to the Board of Education! I am so beyond honored and excited to represent and serve Nevada students. If you have any questions, concerns, or ideas, please do not hesitate to let me know at nevstuco.sboeducation@gmail.com. Thank you all for giving me this amazing opportunity! 

Public Comment 

Comment 1: The public comment began with a statement about Read by Grade 3. Within this comment, a third grade teacher expresses her concerns and shares a perspective that looks into children who have been struggling. The commenter stated that forcing a child to repeat a grade is not effective. Instead, they suggested tier 2 and 3 support, including coaches and tutors. The commenter then states that the read by grade 3 budget should instead be used to get life lines that builds a system in which gives children a stable foundation. 

Comment 2: A public comment addressed the Consideration of Developmental Delay Age Criteria. The commenter stated that kids do not outgrow the need for help with special education when they reach the age of 6. The commenter emphasized that students’ instructional time should be protected and that opportunities to learn should not be lost. Therefore, the commenter believed that the age should be raised to 9. 

Comment 3: An online comment stated that there should be an expansion on Developmental Delay Age so children could be classified to at least age 8 or 9. The commenter stated that Nevada has chosen a restricted approach in which the children are then challenged rather than the system. The commenter asked that we focus on the kids and to not have them fitting into what the system wants. 

President’s and Superintendent’s Report

Superintendent Wakefield first discussed the rescheduling of the Board of Education meeting. 

Superintendents Priorities: 

1. Strategic Plans – Move to concrete plans that align with Nevada Department of Education (NDE)
2. Deepen Connection – Connecting deeply with staff 
3. Fiscal Stewardship – Strengthen NDE’s fiscal operations and ensure program and finance align 
4. Policy and Budget alignment – Develop strong BDR and agency proposals 

Reporting Analysis: 

• Superintendent Wakefield first discussed the burden of reporting requirements that districts, superintendents and their teams are feeling and the need to streamline in order to create more time for teaching, learning and improvement. 
• Superintendent Wakefield stated that while reporting is important, the current system can take time away from teaching, learning, and continuous improvement.
• 89 reports were recommended for action out of 400 reports. Each of the 89 fall into three categories: Eliminate (no identified statutory use) having 34 reports, modify (retains value but can be reduced in frequency) having 29 reports and consolidate (data elements overlap with other collections and should be merged into a single submission) having 26 reports. 

In the elimination category two examples were given to show what this meant by Superintendent Wakefield. 

1. “Empowerment School Compiled Reports and Audits” 

Essentially empowerment schools have not existed in this form since 2010 and yet the report requirement is still on the books which then creates and takes time and energy for the districts. 

1. “Industry Recognized Credentials” 

This was described as a priority area for NDE and the empowering pathways priority but as of 2024 this was collected already for a federal report. This means that this work is already being done, and it would be duplicating / repetitive asking for it twice from districts. 

Legislation Highlight

Senate Bill 460 (2025) : Legislative Authority for Reform

• Highlights legislative authority that moves from the work done from over the years to consolidate and then combines legislative authority to create relief from duplication. 
• Effective July 1st, 2026 

District Performance Framework 

• Senate Bill 460 asked Nevada to rethink accountability not to update measures, but to define success. 
• NDE created the Metrics Subcommittee on Accountability Redesign (SAR) in which it is put into two phases. (Phase one focusing on developing recommendations for pilot performance frame work while phase two refines such district performance framework) 
• Membership of SAR is made to reflect Nevada’s education ecosystem to ensure shared success.
• Superintendent Wakefield emphasizes a vision for accountability. In this vision it is aligned, focused, guided, flexible and accessible. 
• District Performance Framework brings separate pieces of indicators together that then provide a full picture of district level performance. This picture has effective district practices at the bottom serving as a foundation, then district supports and school outcomes in the middle with finally student outcomes on the top.  

Consideration of Developmental Delay Age Criteria

Before diving into what was said in the meeting let’s answer: 

What is Developmental Delay?

Developmental Delay has specific age categories that are given to children so they can have evaluations and support services. 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 like; 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 if the age should be set to 7, 8 or 9 as then the child has more time with such services so the child does not fall behind in education because of such loss, does not need a new evaluation, and has more time to pinpoint the child’s needs. The Board of Education has been considering raising the age for the past two years. 

Returning to the discussion

• The community recommends to extend DD (Developmental Delay) eligibility beyond age 6 
• Julie Bowers presented an overview outlining the impact of the potential expansion of DD which is summarized below. 

This presentation goes over the timeline it would take for change. Ages 7 and 8 pathway would take 9-12 months and age 9 pathway would take 12-18 months. 

This presentation introduces a survey that had 67 responses (majority from Clark County) from parents, educators and advocates regarding the DD eligibility transition occurring at the age of 6. The outcome of this survey showed widespread concerns as there were service gaps, delays in support, confusion regarding eligibility services and disruption of services during critical developmental years. 44 respondents indicated that the age six transitions results into gaps and delays. With this there was also a concern with the re-evaluation process itself. 

• Data was presented for the DD eligibility category in which requested information regarding students who exited the DD eligibility and subsequently requalified for special education services, qualified under a different category or qualified later. 

Between 2021-2022 and 2023-2024 school years an average of 18 students per year exited from developmental delay eligibility and later qualified under another disability category. This represented 76 students / less than 3 % across the 4 year period. This indicates that approximately 97% of students did not later requalify under another disability category during the period studied. Among 76 students who were re-evaluated, the time from exit was approximately a year and a half to go under another category. 

Outcome

A motion to raise the age to 9 failed. A motion to raise the age to 8 was introduced, which failed. The Developmental Delay age criteria therefore remained unchanged after the meeting.

Overview of Read by Grade 3 Retention Requirements and State Board Responsibilities

First, what is Read by Grade 3?

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 children with disabilities, or English language learners.  

Returning to the discussion 

• Students learn with two basic components in which is word recognition and language comprehension. 
• Three passages of what students are given on the tests were shown to help the board visualize the big range of complexity of what’s expected at the third grade level. 
• There are 26 states that have a retention policy, meaning Nevada is not the only one to do this. 
• A timeline was shown explaining when the retention requirements are scheduled to take effect. 

Legislation Highlights

NRS 392.780(5): The State Board shall prescribe by regulation:

• A uniform examination in grades kindergarten and grades 1, 2 and 3 to measure proficiency in the subject of reading. A passing score results in going into grade 4, while those who do not obtain a passing score must take an alternative exam. 

NRS 392.785(2): A good cause exemption must be approved for a pupil who previously was retained in Grade 3. Any other pupil is eligible for a good cause exemption if: 

• Pupils can be eligible for a good cause exemption if they demonstrate proficiency on the alternative exam, shows evidence of mastery of academic standards in reading, is an English learner who has received not less than two years of instruction that teaches English as a second language, has a disability, or received intensive remediation. 

Conclusion

The Board reviewed the Read by Grade 3 requirements and discussed how reading proficiency is measured and enforced, with no formal action taken during this portion of the meeting.

Approval of Assessment RFP Scope of Work and Evaluation Committee Composition

What was discussed? 

• The Board reviewed and discussed the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Nevada’s statewide student assessments. This focuses on the process used to select the system that will create and administer standardized tests for students across the state.
• During this discussion, the Board considered the scope of work, which outlines what the future assessment system must include, as well as the evaluation criteria that will be used to score and compare potential vendors. This ensures all vendors are evaluated fairly and consistently.
• It was emphasized that this step does not involve selecting a vendor yet. Instead, it establishes the framework that will guide the future selection process.
• Once approved, the RFP will be released, allowing companies to submit proposals. These proposals will then be reviewed by an evaluation committee before a final recommendation is brought back to the Board.
• The Board’s discussion centered on ensuring that the assessment system remains consistent, reliable, and aligned with Nevada’s academic standards.

Conclusion

The Board approved the Scope of Work and Evaluation Committee Composition, allowing the Request for Proposal process to move forward. The next step is for the Nevada Department of Education to release the RFP so vendors can submit proposals for the state’s future assessment system.

Presentation on Data Related to the State Board of Education Goals and Potential Metrics for Measuring Progress

Several meetings ago the board voted on 5 key areas they wanted to set goals around as a state board. This is essentially an update on where those goals are now and what is happening currently. 

Diving into the goals

Goal 1: Grade 3 Literacy 

• Allows board members to think about proficiency goals, growth targets, gap closures and overall conditions (underlying causes). 
• It was stated that proficiency is what the state board has more control over and growth is what gets us to such a goal. 

Goal 2: Pre-K Expansion 

• Thinking about access, enrollment, gap closure, quality and structural/conditions. 

Goal 3: 8th Grade Math 

• Thinking about proficiency, gap closure, high school readiness and conditions.

Goal 4: CTE Expansion 

• Discussions on participation, access, gap closure, completion and quality/outcomes.

Goal 5: Streamlining/Coherence 

• Discussions on burden reluctance, process/time, and user experience. 
• Discussion on solving this by asking individual districts what they need.

Public Comment #2

Comment 1: A teacher writes a comment concerning the teacher licensing exam. Underwood wrote how there is a need for the exams given to teachers, but the test process does not reflect true ability to teach. From the expenses of the exams to the lack of teaching practical skill, currently the exams are causing a strain on educators. Underwood asked if there are any additional pathways or alternatives. 

You can find the meeting materials HERE, the agenda HERE, and the video recording HERE. The next meeting will be held on July 29th at 9 AM.