Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Developmental Delay Age topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Board defers decision on extending developmental‑delay exit age to March to gather district data
Summary
After a lengthy presentation and debate, the Nevada State Board of Education voted to table a proposed change to extend the developmental‑delay exit age (DD) — including options to move it to age 7, 8, or 9 — until March while the department collects targeted district data and sample analyses requested by board members.
The State Board of Education voted to delay action on a proposed change to the developmental‑delay (DD) exit age after a multi‑hour presentation from the Department of Education and extended board discussion.
Julie Bowers, director of the Office of Comprehensive Student Services, reviewed background dating to May 2024, federal IDEA guidance that permits identification and supports through age 9, and results of a district survey that generally favored extending the DD exit age (many respondents suggested age 9, with some support for ages 7–8). Bowers also told the board that statewide longitudinal data needed to answer critical questions — such as how many students exit DD at age 6 and never requalify, or how many requalify under another category before age 10 — are not consistently collected across districts.
Board deliberations were wide‑ranging. Several members stressed the moral urgency to extend continuity of services for vulnerable students; others emphasized the policy and fiscal risks of changing regulation without statewide data. Member Ford said the absence of data ‘‘makes no sense’’ when many peer states have later exit ages and practitioners recommended age 9. Member Hughes and others advocated a targeted, methodology‑transparent sample approach so the department and districts could provide usable evidence rather than anecdote.
Motion and result: Member Hudson moved to table the item and direct the department to gather the targeted data points discussed at the meeting (including counts of students who exited DD at age 6 and whether they later requalified in another eligibility category), using representative samples where necessary and reporting back by the March board meeting. Member Ford seconded. The motion passed by voice vote and the board will revisit the issue in March.
Why it matters: The DD eligibility and exit age determine which young children may receive special‑education services and for how long; a change affects IEP timelines, evaluator caseloads, district staffing, and potentially the number of children formally eligible for services. The department presented informal district feedback that the affected population may be small but consequential for individual children.
Next steps: The department will define a sampling methodology and data elements, work with districts to collect historical and sample data, and return to the board in March with the requested analyses to inform any regulatory proposal.
