Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Evaluations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SPCSA site evaluation team completed 63 visits in 2024–25, found common strengths and challenges
Summary
SPCSA staff reported results from 63 site evaluations conducted between September 2024 and April 2025, including 1,477 classroom observations, nine strong recommendations, eleven deficiencies, and recurring trends in recruitment, absenteeism and instructional capacity.
SPCSA staff presented an overview of site evaluations for the 2024–25 school year, reporting 63 school visits between September 2024 and April 2025 and identifying recurring strengths and areas for improvement across the portfolio.
Key figures and findings: the site evaluation team observed 1,477 classrooms (903 elementary, 358 middle, 211 high), up from 804 observed classrooms in the 2023–24 school year. The team issued nine strong recommendations and eleven deficiencies and conducted targeted follow‑up visits for schools with identified issues. Staff estimated each site evaluation required about 50–55 staff hours.
Process and scope: Presenters described the two evaluation types—comprehensive evaluations (every other year for years 1, 3, and 5) and targeted evaluations triggered by prior deficiencies, low NSPF ratings, or notices of concern. A typical site evaluation day includes five focus groups (leaders, board members, families, staff, students), classroom observations (the team attempts to observe about 75% of classrooms and at least one classroom per grade level), safety checks, and a debrief. Teams produce a 25–35 page report with focus‑group summaries, classroom observation analysis, and recommendations; reports are posted on the SPCSA website and monitored quarterly.
Common strengths reported: positive student‑staff relationships, intentional use of data to drive instruction, strong leadership teams with clear goals, increases in graduation rates and college/career participation, and more consistent tiered instruction and small‑group practices.
Common challenges reported: recruiting and retaining staff, chronic absenteeism, raising NSPF star ratings for low‑performing schools, building instructional capacity through targeted observations and professional development, refining tiered academic and behavioral supports, timely compliance submissions, and representing SPCSA averages in FRL, special education and ELL populations. Presenters also noted unique rural challenges, where family obligations (for example, traveling for medical care) can increase absenteeism.
Board members asked about selection of focus‑group participants (school leaders select families and students; SPCSA selects staff randomly) and how site‑evaluation findings inform school support. Staff said the site evaluation team is not the same as the school support team; SPCSA plans operational changes to better align evaluation findings and school support and will provide a follow‑up presentation at the August meeting.
Reports and access: Site evaluation reports are published on the SPCSA website (charterschools.nv.gov) for public review. Staff said they will return with a plan for the upcoming 2025–26 site evaluation year.
