State Board debates how to identify 'at‑risk' pupils; requests further analyses from department

CARSON CITY / LAS VEGAS — The State Board of Education on Oct. 14 heard a detailed staff presentation about methods for identifying "at‑risk" pupils for funding purposes, debated whether the state''s quintile-based method matches legislative intent, and directed department staff to provide additional analyses comparing alternate approaches.

Chair Orr opened discussion of agenda item 3, "information, discussion and possible action on adjustments to at risk student identification metrics," after the public‑comment period and asked department staff to present updated data and options. Dr. Gabriel Hill of the Nevada Department of Education summarized work adding two years of assessment and validation‑day data and described several cut‑score options and filtering approaches being used to identify pupils who fall in the lowest performance quintile on selected assessments.

Deputy Attorney General Greg Ott read the statute the board is using as guidance, NRS 387.1211, telling members: "At risk pupil means a pupil who is within the quintile of pupils determined to be the most in need of additional services and assistance to graduate based on one or more measures prescribed by the State Board, which may include without limitation consideration of whether a pupil is economically disadvantaged, is at risk of dropping out of high school, or fails to meet minimum standards of academic proficiency." Greg Ott, deputy attorney general, emphasized that the statute uses permissive language ("may" and "without limitation") and leaves substantial discretion to the board and the department within the bounds of substantial‑evidence review.

Board members and invited commenters pressed two central questions: whether the cut should be defined as the bottom quintile of statewide assessment scores (a relative ranking that will always produce a lowest quintile) or instead be defined by first constraining the population (for example, to pupils who are direct‑certified for free or reduced price meals) and then identifying the lowest performers within that constrained group. Member Dawson Owens and Chair Orr repeatedly asked whether the department could instead start with the direct‑certified population and then identify those "not at grade level" (for example, SBAC level 1 or 2, or MAP scores below locally specified thresholds) so that funding would reach an amount closer to the historical policy goal of approximately 20% of total pupils.

Ryan Reeves of Academica Nevada, who said he also serves on the school‑funding commission, told the board the statute is broad and that the board has discretion so long as the chosen approach is supported by substantial evidence: "The statute is completely permissive on that with the 'may' and 'without limitation' language that is in it," Reeves said. He suggested the department could adopt a regulation or business rule that starts with direct certification and then applies performance filters, and then, if the resulting list exceeds the target percentage, step downward in cut scores until the enrollment cap is reached.

Dr. Hill and other department staff explained technical limitations and caveats attached to the datasets: different assessments and grade bands are not directly comparable; ACT data are handled differently because ACT does not match on date of birth; and the department had to filter enrollment codes to align with the PCFP (pupil‑centered funding) team's request. Staff said they had assembled working files using 2021–22 through 2023–24 assessment and validation‑day matches and that the filtered population of non‑IEP, non‑EL, non‑homeless, non‑foster, direct‑certified students totaled roughly 121,517 in the dataset presented. Using the department''s current methodology, one option produced an identified group of about 24,225 pupils (approximately 19.9% of that constrained population), while the board observed the statewide funded population under the current rule had dropped to about 11% in recent modeling.

Board members expressed concern about volatility when small, narrowly defined populations are used to determine lists and funding. Several members said they preferred approaches that reduced year‑to‑year swings in the number of pupils identified. Members asked staff for several additional analyses: (1) run the same identification business rules on the entire assessed population (remove the direct‑certification filter) to show how counts change; (2) run a constrained option of direct‑certified pupils who are "not at grade level" (e.g., SBAC level 1 or 2, or below local MAP proficiency thresholds) and show feed‑through to a 20% statewide target; and (3) provide subanalyses for k–2, k–8 and high‑school bands (for example, MAP percentile bands and SBAC level 1 vs. levels 1+2). Dr. Hill said the department has working files and could return with those follow‑up analyses quickly.

No formal motion or vote was taken on a final definition or regulation. Chair Orr closed the item by saying the group would continue internal work and that staff would return with the requested scenarios for the subcommittee and then the full board to consider. "At this point, we are not taking any action," she said. The department and staff agreed to aim for additional deliverables before the end of the month so the board could consider a preliminary recommendation in time to model funding impacts for the next budget cycle.

Ending: The board did not adopt a final definition during the meeting. Members asked staff to provide the specified alternative datasets and scenario modeling, and to schedule a shorter follow‑up meeting before the state‑board session so the subcommittee and the full board can review a recommended approach and its budgetary effects.