Gwen Center presents Nevada research: early‑childhood fragmentation, PCFP limits, data gaps hamper school funding and services

Anna Colquitt, a researcher at the Gwen Center for Policy Priorities, told the Nevada Assembly Committee on Education that her organization’s interim research finds Nevada’s early‑childhood and K‑12 funding systems are fragmented, underfunded and hampered by a lack of transparent, integrated data.

Colquitt described the early‑childhood landscape as “incredibly siloed”: more than 60 entities operate in the state’s early‑childhood space under roughly 26 chapters of the Nevada Revised Statutes and across about 40 separate state budget accounts, she said. That fragmentation complicates family navigation, creates duplication and leaves policymakers without a clear oversight structure. The Gwen Center recommended a phased approach, beginning with a temporary oversight office to convene stakeholders and design a long‑term governance structure, then investment in integrated data systems, cost‑based funding models and no‑wrong‑door family access points.

On K‑12 finance, Colquitt reviewed the People‑Centered Funding Plan (PCFP), the state’s student‑level formula. She said the PCFP provides a base per‑pupil allocation that is roughly $9,000 per student, plus set weights for English learners, at‑risk students and GATE (gifted and talented) students; special education funding remains cost‑based rather than a set weight. Colquitt noted that a student eligible for multiple categories receives only the single highest weight, although schools must still provide multiple services. “That has created added costs for districts,” she said, citing an initial estimate from Washoe County that providing services to multi‑eligible students may cost the district about $20,000,000 beyond what the state’s weights supply.

Colquitt told the committee that Nevada’s statewide per‑pupil spending is more than $4,000 below the national average and below expert estimates for adequacy. She emphasized that the PCFP has improved transparency and allocation design but does not itself solve overall adequacy or all distribution problems.

A key issue the Gwen Center raised is how Nevada now determines the at‑risk weight. Until recently that weight used free‑and‑reduced‑price‑lunch counts; the state now uses an Infinite Campus grad‑score algorithm — a 75‑factor calculation — and assigns at‑risk funding to the bottom 20th percentile of that score. Colquitt said Nevada is the only state that uses an algorithm to determine funding eligibility in that way, and said principals and district administrators report they cannot see the calculation’s drivers for individual students. That obscures how to match interventions to identified needs, she said, and contributes to inconsistent spending and hiring challenges for positions paid from at‑risk funds.

Colquitt recommended standardizing reporting on how weighted funds are spent at the school level, improving accessible data systems (she cited the state’s Empower implementation as a partial foundation), and designing transparent performance measures so the public can see resource use and outcomes.

The Gwen Center said it will publish a condensed Nevada briefing book this week summarizing more than two dozen interim reports and is hosting the Gallagher Dialogues event Feb. 27 at the Nevada Museum of Art to present further research with national partners. The center also said it is continuing studies on chronic absenteeism, Native American fee waivers and workforce‑relevant durable skills for students.

Committee members asked detailed follow‑ups on chronic absenteeism, data integration and how a Nevada “portrait of a learner” could align with competency and durable‑skills work; the Gwen Center said it will continue to work with stakeholders and referenced its recent and upcoming reports as resources for legislators.