Nevada R-V board adopts homeschool assistance handbook with annual review; questions raised on contact, pay and administration

The Nevada Community School District Board of Education voted July 14 to approve a homeschool assistance program handbook as presented and directed annual reviews of the program’s finances and operations.

Board members and staff discussed how the district would implement the two program options in the handbook, how the state’s minimum contact rules apply, how teachers would be paid and tracked, and what materials the district would approve for purchase under the program. The vote to adopt the handbook, with the annual review requirement, passed at the special meeting.

Staff said the state requires a minimum of four contacts every 45 instructional days for homeschool assistance programs, with at least half of those contacts being face-to-face; non–face-to-face contacts such as email count as non–face-to-face contacts. "The state has a minimum of 4 contacts," said a staff member during the discussion. The district will code participating students as HSAAP for state reporting and the district described that those students would be counted at a 0.3 funding weight in state reports.

Board members questioned how the district will measure teacher time and payments. The handbook provides an Option 2 in which a home-school teacher may receive up to 1 hour per week of payment for a student (about four hours per month) or be paid based on documented time; staff said a log or Google Doc could be used to record time, but a final tracking method had not yet been adopted. One board member summarized the uncertainty: "We seem to be stepping over how we are going to measure it," during the discussion.

The handbook allows, for Option 2, purchase of up to $250 in supplies, textbooks or equipment per teacher/student subject to superintendent approval; non-consumable items would be returned as outlined in the manual and purchases would follow district purchasing procedures.

Board members noted administrative and financial risks. One speaker recalled the district previously ended a similar program about 11 years earlier after it ran about $20,000 in the red when per-student funding dropped from a 0.6 weight to 0.3. Board members expressed skepticism that the program would be self-sustaining and asked that the district include a review of administrative time and program cost in future assessments; staff said historically the district had not captured staff time for these programs as a separate billable cost but that an estimate could be included in future reviews.

Staff also noted the district did not currently have a teacher hired for the program; if the board wished to move forward the position would need to be posted so the program could open. After discussion, a board member moved to approve the handbook as presented with annual reviews; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor.

The board did not adopt a start date tied to the hire; staff said posting for a teacher and establishing payroll/tracking procedures would be next steps if the program proceeds.

Items raised but not resolved during the meeting included the exact source/citation for the state's contact requirements (staff agreed to provide the source), final design of the teacher time-tracking method, and projected student enrollment for the first year (staff estimated a small number given the late summer timing).