State board subcommittee orders Department of Education to draft regulations aligning NRS 388G with SB 460
October 15, 2025 | Department of Education, Executive Agencies, Organizations, Executive, Nevada
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
CARSON CITY — The State Board of Education subcommittee charged with reviewing changes to NRS 388G voted unanimously on Oct. 15 to direct the Nevada Department of Education to identify all related administrative code and present draft regulatory language by Dec. 1 to align state rules with provisions enacted in Senate Bill 460.
The action came after a two-hour discussion led by Lisa Ford, interim deputy superintendent of the Student Achievement Division at the Nevada Department of Education, who reviewed statutory amendments in SB 460 and highlighted multiple sections of NRS 388G that were removed or revised and that may require updates to the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). "SB 4 60 completely struck that piece from statutory language," Ford said while pointing to sections removed from 388G. The subcommittee also heard public commenters who urged clearer training for school organizational teams and protections for rural and specialty schools.
Why it matters: The statutory changes enacted in SB 460 altered school-level authorities, timelines and definitions under NRS 388G, and some provisions take effect as early as July 2026; the subcommittee said regulatory language is needed so districts and school teams have guidance on how to implement the new law.
Ford told members that multiple NAC chapters (including provisions in NAC 388G and related NAC chapters) appear to be affected and that the department is compiling the set of regulations that may require revision, rescission or creation. She said the department is already inventorying regulations and that some previously adopted board regulations were never codified.
Public commenters described confusion and gaps they say the changes create at the school level. Ed Gonzalez, who said he serves on multiple school organizational teams, warned the overhaul left “many gaps in this law as it currently stands,” citing the removal of statutory language about budget content and staff-selection authority from NRS 388G. Lindsey Daley, a parent from Logandale, said rural schools that meet the state’s rural-remote criteria risk being "swallowed up in the large urbanness of CCSD" and urged the subcommittee to consider equity and allocation protections. Bridal Nungaray, a Clark County School District employee and parent, recommended the Department require "a standardized data driven training for all SOT members." Anna Binder provided a written comment urging transparent training and budget visibility for precincts.
Members pressed staff and legal counsel on timing and authority. Chair Braxton asked whether Clark County School District was already obliged to begin duties assigned by SB 460; Deputy Attorney General Greg Ott answered that effective dates vary by section and must be checked individually: "You really need to look at the specific action to figure out... when the effective date of that section is." Ford and legal staff noted some sections become effective on passage, others in 2027 or 2028, and that a July 2026 deadline referenced in the bill will require regulations for the next school year.
The subcommittee also discussed how the board’s legislative advisory committee and the 388G subcommittee should coordinate. Ford (board member) and other members said the two groups can operate in parallel: the subcommittee focuses on regulatory language required by current statute while the legislative advisory committee can identify statutory changes to propose in a future session.
Motion and vote: Member Braxton moved, and Trustee Member Ford seconded, that the Nevada Department of Education identify all administrative code related to NRS 388G, propose changes and draft regulatory language, and present those materials to the subcommittee for review prior to workshop, with the department providing the materials no later than Dec. 1. The subcommittee voted unanimously in favor (Braxton: aye; Member Ford: aye; Member Hudson: aye). The motion was recorded and will produce the department’s December deliverable and subsequent regulatory workshops.
Next steps: The department said it plans to prepare draft regulatory text, hold public workshops (a regulatory workshop was mentioned for October and a hearing for the full board in November as part of its schedule), and bring revised language to the subcommittee and the full board. The subcommittee members discussed organizing a public, full-day workshop by the end of the year to solicit community input and emphasized the need to keep regulatory work focused on improving student learning rather than producing excessive bureaucracy.
The subcommittee adjourned after agreeing to take the department’s December deliverable and to schedule future public workshops and hearings.
The action came after a two-hour discussion led by Lisa Ford, interim deputy superintendent of the Student Achievement Division at the Nevada Department of Education, who reviewed statutory amendments in SB 460 and highlighted multiple sections of NRS 388G that were removed or revised and that may require updates to the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). "SB 4 60 completely struck that piece from statutory language," Ford said while pointing to sections removed from 388G. The subcommittee also heard public commenters who urged clearer training for school organizational teams and protections for rural and specialty schools.
Why it matters: The statutory changes enacted in SB 460 altered school-level authorities, timelines and definitions under NRS 388G, and some provisions take effect as early as July 2026; the subcommittee said regulatory language is needed so districts and school teams have guidance on how to implement the new law.
Ford told members that multiple NAC chapters (including provisions in NAC 388G and related NAC chapters) appear to be affected and that the department is compiling the set of regulations that may require revision, rescission or creation. She said the department is already inventorying regulations and that some previously adopted board regulations were never codified.
Public commenters described confusion and gaps they say the changes create at the school level. Ed Gonzalez, who said he serves on multiple school organizational teams, warned the overhaul left “many gaps in this law as it currently stands,” citing the removal of statutory language about budget content and staff-selection authority from NRS 388G. Lindsey Daley, a parent from Logandale, said rural schools that meet the state’s rural-remote criteria risk being "swallowed up in the large urbanness of CCSD" and urged the subcommittee to consider equity and allocation protections. Bridal Nungaray, a Clark County School District employee and parent, recommended the Department require "a standardized data driven training for all SOT members." Anna Binder provided a written comment urging transparent training and budget visibility for precincts.
Members pressed staff and legal counsel on timing and authority. Chair Braxton asked whether Clark County School District was already obliged to begin duties assigned by SB 460; Deputy Attorney General Greg Ott answered that effective dates vary by section and must be checked individually: "You really need to look at the specific action to figure out... when the effective date of that section is." Ford and legal staff noted some sections become effective on passage, others in 2027 or 2028, and that a July 2026 deadline referenced in the bill will require regulations for the next school year.
The subcommittee also discussed how the board’s legislative advisory committee and the 388G subcommittee should coordinate. Ford (board member) and other members said the two groups can operate in parallel: the subcommittee focuses on regulatory language required by current statute while the legislative advisory committee can identify statutory changes to propose in a future session.
Motion and vote: Member Braxton moved, and Trustee Member Ford seconded, that the Nevada Department of Education identify all administrative code related to NRS 388G, propose changes and draft regulatory language, and present those materials to the subcommittee for review prior to workshop, with the department providing the materials no later than Dec. 1. The subcommittee voted unanimously in favor (Braxton: aye; Member Ford: aye; Member Hudson: aye). The motion was recorded and will produce the department’s December deliverable and subsequent regulatory workshops.
Next steps: The department said it plans to prepare draft regulatory text, hold public workshops (a regulatory workshop was mentioned for October and a hearing for the full board in November as part of its schedule), and bring revised language to the subcommittee and the full board. The subcommittee members discussed organizing a public, full-day workshop by the end of the year to solicit community input and emphasized the need to keep regulatory work focused on improving student learning rather than producing excessive bureaucracy.
The subcommittee adjourned after agreeing to take the department’s December deliverable and to schedule future public workshops and hearings.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting