The Commission on School Funding heard an update on an ongoing review of how Nevada identifies students ‘‘most in need of additional services’’ (the at‑risk category under the pupil‑centered funding plan).

NDE staff explained that the state moved away from using free‑and‑reduced‑price‑lunch (FRL) as a proxy for at‑risk status because FRL was too broad and produced a count that exceeded the targeted population for the state’s limited at‑risk funding. Peterson said the department initially used the ‘‘grad score’’ (a composite derived from the state student information system) to create a narrower count but that the State Board of Education has formed a work group to consider alternative or additional metrics.

What the state is testing

Megan Peterson told commissioners the state board’s subcommittee is examining several indicators — including direct certification (direct cert), homelessness and foster status, grade‑band assessment performance, and chronic absenteeism — and will consider narrower or combined metrics in an attempt to identify the students who most need targeted supports. She said initial pulls using a short list of metrics yielded a much smaller pool (about 45,000 students for the 2023–24 school year) than the FRL count (roughly 247,000 for the same year). "When we looked at those numbers initially, the count of students who qualified was about 45,000," Peterson said.

Timing and next steps

NDE said it will present updated multi‑year pulls to the State Board subcommittee at an October meeting to test stability and mobility across school years, then share the results with the commission. The department also plans to provide WestEd’s written report and an updated performance addendum to the commission in the week before the next meeting so commissioners can review outside analysis in advance.

Why it matters

How the state defines at‑risk students determines who receives the additional weighted funding embedded in the pupil‑centered funding plan. A broader definition (like FRL) reaches many more students but dilutes the funding available per eligible child; a narrower or different metrics list may preserve funding for students most on risk of falling behind, but it may also exclude students who need supports but do not meet narrow thresholds.

Commission comments and context

Commissioners emphasized that any chosen metric set should be predictably applied across grade bands and should be usable by districts to target interventions. Several commissioners asked that, as the State Board refines metrics, the commission examine how identified students are served and whether funding can be structured to sustain interventions that show results.

Ending note

NDE will circulate the WestEd report and the at‑risk multi‑year data in advance of the commission’s next meeting so commissioners can evaluate alternative metrics before recommending statutory or model changes.