Views: 6
Published By Stephen Phillips August 27th, 2025 @ 10:48pm
If you wish to watch the full board meeting in its entirety you may do so using the embedded video below. Following the full board meeting video is the article on this board meeting itself.
For the purposes of this article and the relevance of the Superintendent search we will focus primarily on Agenda Item 8 Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action for the State Superintendent Search
You may watch the full segment for Agenda Item 8 below followed by our recap on what happened.
Board President Katherine Dockweiler Starts of the Discussion
by stating that “Today is a big day” referencing the fact that Agenda Item 8 is in regard to the much anticipated Superintendent Search.
She then proceeds to thank the other members of the board for reviewing and scoring each applicant previously according to the rubric. She also thanks Deputy Superintendent Lisa Ford and Angie Castellanos for preparing and organizing the materials. She also thanks the candidates themselves for submitting an application and for their commitment to public education, also noting that a process like this is not easy and further commending each of them for bringing their expertise forward. She then goes on to state that there will be several votes that the board will need to take on agenda Item 8 and notes that you can see them outlined on the agenda, noting that each vote will be taken one by one. Further clarifying that she will share specific details for each item, identify key board documents related to that item, and offer a starting point for each items discussion.
Board President Katherine Dockweiler
begins with the first item stating the board will review and discuss the cumulative rubric scores derived from the candidates cv’s, (which stands for Curriculum Vitae) and their written statements.
Below you will find an embedded pdf of the Superintendent Interview Rubric and the NV Superintendent of Public Instruction
Curriculum Vitae Screening Tool followed by the Final Scoring Matrix for each of the applicants.
Board Member Owens Makes a Motion to move forward with the 6 candidates.
to which Board President Dockweiler seconds. Board President Dockweiler then asks if there is any discussion on this item before moving forward. Board Member Danielle Ford then chimes in stating that she thinks there should be discussion on this item. Further clarifying that she was under the impression that there was going to be discussion on this and that they wouldn’t just go with the rubric noting that there is a lot more nuance to the process. She goes on to mention that part of Open Meeting Law is for constituents to know and understand why board members voted in the way they did, citing that she feels the board has a duty to at least explain why they are supporting those specific candidates, or reference any other candidates that may look interesting. Board Member Ford then notes that since she is just now seeing the top 6 candidates would like a few minutes to go over them briefly and compare them with her own notes. She also clarifies that if anyone else has some thoughts that they should go ahead and state them as she probably will have some thoughts on this. Board Member Ford says that she knows they have a motion and a second to vote on this item but strongly advocates that there should be additional context provided by the board with this in order to be more transparent with the community, Further stating that she would vote no on that item if they were going to move forward without any discussion. That is something I commend and Admire her for. That kind of adherence to principals is something that has become a rare thing in today’s world. Especially in politics.
Board President Dockweiler then asks if there are any other comments thoughts or reflections from board members.
Surprisingly to my astonishment none of the other board members opted to chime in with any discussion on the item. In previous meetings other board members had acted like they were interested in the idea of being transparent with the community in regards to the superintendent search. However after no one else chimed in or wanted to have any discussion on the matter that set off a red flag in my brains B.S. Detector.
Board President Katherine Dockweiler then loops back to Board Member Danielle Ford for any additional thoughts or comments, after putting emphasis on the fact that they have a motion and a second to vote on the item. Personally from my perspective it seems like Board President Dockweiler is in a rush to get a vote on the item, and while i understand the need to get this process done, I do not see why there would be any issue having at least some discussion on the item by other board members before voting. To me that’s a red flag that is indicative of someone having an Alternate Agenda IMO.
Lets hear what Board Member Danielle Ford has to say
after having some time to review her notes and the top 6 candidates.
Board Member Ford mentions that the Board had some previous discussions about some things she would have liked to include in the rubric that were not included, Such as a strong allegiance to public education. Noting that some of the candidates that ranked really high on the rubric don’t have that and appear to have a background in ideologies and also organizations that have not historically supported public education. Additionally she mentions that she has previously pushed the board to discuss what the boards personal preference in a leader would look like before they took the applications. Noting that they never had that discussion pointing out that she personally would liked to have had someone who has recent classroom experience, specifying that she would trade that over someone who already has experience leading a large district because she is not looking for “More of the same”. further stating that she is looking for someone that has recent principal experience, educator experience, and apply that context to real changes and come into the role and learn from the ground up rather than come in with experience they’ve had in other places. She further clarifies that there are some candidates who are not in that top 6 that have education experience that she would like to discuss considering for the job. Following her input the board moves to vote on moving forward with the top 6 candidates. Ultimately the board had 5 members vote yea, 1 nay vote which came from Board Member Ford with 1 abstention coming from Board Member Hudson. This resulted in the motion passing.
Board President Dockweiler then moves on proposing that the board
take the next two items out of order selecting the performance task first, stating it will help guide the boards selection of the interview questions themselves ensuring they don’t choose questions the candidates may have already addressed in detail during the performance task and associated rubric. Referencing meeting materials item 8 i – Superintendent Draft Performance Tasks (shown below)
and meeting materials item 8 h – Sample Performance Task Rubric (shown below)
Board President Dockweiler states that the Board has received drafts of three possible tasks on that.
- Task 1: Statewide Vision & Strategic Priorities Briefing
- Task 2: Fiscal Planning & Policy Advocacy
- Task 3: Systems-Level Initiative Design for Student Outcomes
respectively. She states that board members may select one of these three tasks or suggest an additional task for consideration.
Based on the tasks provided Board President Made the recommendation to consider elimination Performance Task 1: Statewide Vision & Strategic Priorities Briefing, she then gives the floor to the Board for any further discussion.
Board Member Orr then chimes in stating she believes it would be correct to move away from Performance Task 1, citing that applicants have already provided their Vision Statements through their written part of the application process. Member Orr then shares that she would like a little bit of discussion on Performance Task 2 regarding the idea of telling the candidate which 5 major initiatives they should allocate $500,000,000 towards. Further mentioning that she would like to give the applicants the number of initiatives and let them define what those are within the budget, citing the fact that she said she would want their vision to be clearly aligned to the budge items that they are using. Board Member Hughes then weighs in with his thoughts, stating he would concur with Task 1 being duplicative and that he advocates for not using that one. He states that he also agrees with Board Member Orr in regard to Task 2 not being complex enough. He goes on to share that he was thinking that Performance Task 3 really stood out the most because he feels it goes deeper than a vision statement provided, he cites strategic thinking , and implementation as the reasons for why Task 3 stands out. Board Member Hughes then poses the question as to whether or not Task 3 could include a budget component. Member Orr chimes in with additional input stating that she agrees with Board Member Hughes stating that Task 3 is what most interests her, citing that she thinks they will see the highest level of strategic thinking with this task. Board Member Ford weighs in with some of her thoughts. She reminds the board members that during the discussion initially not just herself but other board members as well had expressed interest in somebody that had recent classroom experience noting that she doesn’t see any of that reflected in the Superintendent Draft Performance Tasks. She is correct in this as i remember several Board Members including Board Member Braxton & Board Member Hughes expressing interest in what he referred to at the last meeting as the “Fourth Way”. Board President Dockweiler chimes in response to Board Member Fords Input and asks would that be appropriate for the Performance Task or would it be appropriate to be embedded in one of the interview questions. Board Member Braxton Chimes in stating that she wants it to be clear that what she is advocating for in regard to the Performance Task and Interview questions is someone with classroom experience and then poses the question of how they may go about integrating that aspect into the Interview Questions. Board Member Hughes responds suggesting that the way they could accomplish that would be by asking multiple questions that inform that perspective, suggesting that he thinks that is the best way the board could go about it. He then gives a couple examples in this regard. i.e. “is it how much time I spend with these particular communities?”, “is it how much time I’ve spent in the classroom?”. Emphasizing that he thinks the board should use that particular lens when coming up with the questions so as to get a more informative answer in that regard.
Board Member Annette Dawson Owens
responds by agreeing with Board Member Hughes stating that she thinks that in the bullet points under the Task 3 prompt Design a 3-year statewide initiative that the board can add to that
- includes diversity, and diverse districts.
- community engagement
She further states that she thinks they will also be able to see in this performance task and through the interview questions that their strategies and evidence based interventions that they have used, their understanding of classroom techniques and things like that as well. She recommends that if they integrate that aspect into both the Performance Task as well as the interview questions they can get a more thorough idea of the diverse experience, community engagement, and classroom experience of each applicant to fill in any missing gaps.
Board President Dockweiler responds by acknowledging that it seems that the board is all on the same page as far as Performance Task 3 is concerned further stating that she wants to be very clear by what they are asking each applicant to do in the prompt. She points out that they currently have 5 bullet points for that prompt and that the last one says
- Considerations for PCBE integration where applicable
She clarifies that she is looking for specific language for the additional bullet points that the board talked about to ensure that when this task is presented they get the information that they are hoping to get. She asks the board if anyone would like to offer specific language for the additional bullet points.
Board Member Hughes then suggests
that the diverse communities bullet point could be added into bullet point 3 changing it from
- Implementation timeline and responsible actors
to something more like
- Implementation timeline and responsible actors, and any additional verification and strategy based on community needs.
He recommends that could be the place where they integrate the additional bullet point for community engagement into the existing third bullet point.
Board President Dockweiler thanks Board Member Hughes, additionally saying that his suggestion was very encompassing.
Board Member Orr chimes in
Suggesting that it would be ideal if they could avoid using acronyms in order to make sure that they are very clear in what they are asking about.
Board Member Ford then provides her input and thoughts stating
“I guess I’ll just put on the record that i would give a bunch of suggestions but of the six that we chose there’s really no point in modifying them because none of them have any type of recent classroom experience whatsoever and four out of six of them are tied to national organizations that are companies, there’s education management companies so i would love to be more involved in this process right now however it doesn’t really matter so thank you.”
President Dockweiler thanks Board Member Ford for her thoughts and input and asks if any other board member has any additional thoughts on the matter to which there are none. She then puts forth the motion to move forward with performance task 3 with the additions that member Hughes mentioned on the 3rd bullet point and with an additional bullet point relative to budgetary considerations and diverse student backgrounds. Board Member Else then seconds the motion to which the board votes 7 “yea” with zero “nays” and no “abstentions”
The Board then moves on to Finalizing the Interview Questions and Scoring Rubrics
Referencing the documents 8e Final Interview Questions (Shown Below)
and 8f Superintendent Interview Rubric (shown below)
She also notes that there is an additional document that Board Member Hughes, Board Clerk Hudson, and Herself have put together with a draft of 7 questions for the boards consideration. Further stating that this document is just a starting point for conversation to narrow it down from the 29 questions that are on the document 8e Final Interview Questions list. She notes that this proffered list has one question falling within each of the 7 high leverage priority domains that the board identified. Noting that some of the questions may be reworked to include elements from another question. The draft 7 questions highlight topics of importance without being redundant to maximize the breadth and scope of what the board hopes to learn from a future state superintendent of public instruction.
Board President Dockweiler specifies the 7 draft questions chosen from the 29 on document 8e Final Interview Questions.
Those questions are as follows
Question 3:
Describe a time you led a large-scale effort that significantly improved student outcomes.
What measurable results did you achieve, what strategies did you use, and what was your role?
Why it matters: Evaluates leadership through data-driven results and scalable success.
Distinguishes candidates who’ve delivered impact, not just managed processes.
Question 5:
What is your strategic vision for improving student outcomes in Nevada, particularly for
underserved student groups such as English learners, students with disabilities, and students
experiencing homelessness?
Why it matters: Prioritizes equity and understanding of Nevada’s diverse student population.
Question 20:
How would you effectively communicate and implement statewide initiatives across 17
diverse districts?
Why it matters: Evaluates communication style, system thinking, and ability to ensure
consistency across highly variable contexts.
Question 7:
Share an example of a time when you had to make difficult budget decisions to align with
strategic priorities. How did you manage constraints and gain stakeholder buy-in?
Why it matters: Budgeting is a leadership act. This question probes fiscal discipline and the
ability to lead amid constraints.
Question 28:
How would you collaborate with the State Board of Education to ensure alignment and
shared accountability?
Why it matters: A productive Superintendent Board relationship is critical for stability,
alignment, and progress.
Question 18:
How familiar are you with Nevada’s Portrait of a Learner and national frameworks? How
would you ensure Nevada’s approach evolves while remaining grounded in the whole-child
philosophy?
Why it matters: Assesses understanding of current frameworks and capacity to evolve with
national best practices.
Question 25:
What do you believe is the most pressing issue in Nevada education today, and how would
you address it?
Why it matters: Tests awareness, urgency, and strategic clarity.
Board President Dockweiler then opens up the item for conversation.
to which Student Member Evana Lan suggests including a question in this interview that focuses on inter generational integration, specifically how the candidate plans to support and amplify student voice in decision making considering their decisions would impact students all around the state. She further states this kind of question could help identify a leader who truly values student leadership and thanks the board for hearing her input.
Board President Dockweiler thanks Student Member Lan for her input, and then gives the floor to Board Member Ford who has additional input of her own.
Member Ford state she thinks that they should keep questions 24 and 25, citing the fact that the board never really discussed what is important to them or what their boundaries are for bare minimums, further stating that she thinks they need to focus on Nevada not necessarily experience in other large districts or states. She cites the fact that Carson City, NV has shown some success with Portrait of a Learner, She states it would be nice if the board agreed that they wanted someone who seems to be in favor of continuing portrait of a learner and is familiar with it, and has a vision that aligns with what the board has already been doing at a bare minimum. She points out that anyone who comes in without that would not be the perfect person for the board. She finishes off her thoughts by advocating for keeping Questions 23 and 24, Correcting her misquote at the beginning of her statement when she said questions 24 and 25.
There was further discussion back and forth between board members for at least another 45 minutes
ultimately resulting in the Board approving a formal set and order of seven structured questions, covering these thematic areas:
- Student voice
- Innovation and modernization
- Policy direction
- Managing budget
- Collaboration
- Communication
…and a seventh, implied category (likely around equity or leadership philosophy)
They also authorized the Board President and Vice President to finalize the question wording and sequence with staff before the August interviews
I Highly recommend watching the full segment of Agenda Item 8 at the top of this article to get the full context
of what went down and how the board voted for each of the decisions made for that item. Due to time constraints i will wrap up this article with a detailed summary and breakdown of the key points and takeaways for Agenda Item 8 provided by ChatGPT.
I Asked ChatGPT
“give me a detailed breakdown of what occurred during agenda item 8 at the Nevada state board of education meeting on July 30th, 2025”
Here is the response i received.
Here’s exactly what the Board did under Agenda Item 8 — “Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action for the State Superintendent Search” at the Nevada State Board of Education meeting on July 30, 2025:
- Framed the item & materials. The agenda set Item 8 to cover the Superintendent search mechanics: reviewing cumulative rubric scores, selecting candidates for interviews, finalizing interview questions, the performance task, interview schedule/format, and authorizing staff communications. President Dr. Katherine Dockweiler led the item. (Strapi)
- Applications reviewed (19 total) via blind rubric process. Board members considered 19 applications using posted CV and vision-statement rubrics; redacted applicant packets and tools were provided in the support materials for public review. (Nevada Department of Education, Strapi)
- Advanced six candidates to interviews (result of the vote). The Board voted to interview six finalists—Dr. Lisa Coons, Dr. Sylvia Mitchell, Dr. Heather Sanchez, Amy Suman, Dr. Victor Wakefield, and Dr. Darryl Wyatt—selected from the 19 via the blind rubric process. (Nevada Department of Education)
- Which applicants advanced (as labeled during scoring). In the public recap and score matrix posted with the meeting materials, the six interviewees correspond to Applicants #1, #7, #8, #11, #16, and #18—the top-scoring entries on the published “Superintendent Applicant Score Matrix.” (Opportunity 180, Strapi)
- Interview dates, location, and deliberations. The Board set in-person interviews for August 28–29, 2025 (Las Vegas), with immediate deliberation on Aug. 29 to select the three names to forward to the Governor per statute. (Press release confirms the six finalists and cites NRS 385.150 for the three-name submission; the recap provides the schedule and deliberation plan.) (Nevada Department of Education, Opportunity 180)
- Interview format approved (75 minutes per candidate). The Board adopted a structure: 15-minute performance task presentation, 5 minutes for Board scoring, then 7 structured questions (~5–6 minutes each including limited clarifying questions), and closing. The official “Run of Show” totals ~75 minutes. (Strapi)
- Performance task chosen & refined. The Board selected the “Systems-Level Initiative Design for Student Outcomes” task (a three-year statewide initiative) and added specifications to address Nevada’s diverse student population plus community and budget considerations. (See the posted Sample Performance Tasks, with Task 3 as the systems-level design.) (Opportunity 180, Strapi)
- Interview questions approved (themes). The Board approved a set and order of seven structured interview questions covering: visionary/instructional leadership; equity and student success; organizational/systems leadership; political & fiscal savvy; stakeholder engagement & communication; innovation/modernization; and philosophical clarity/policy direction. Final drafting coordination by the Board President/Vice President with staff was authorized. (See the posted Sample Interview Questions and Interview Rubric.) (Opportunity 180, Strapi)
- Evaluation rubrics approved. The Board approved rubrics for both the performance task and the interview questions; the rubric documents describe 1–4 scoring across the same leadership domains used earlier in the process. (Opportunity 180, Strapi)
- Staff direction authorized. The Board authorized staff to notify the six finalists, provide the interview instructions, and proceed with the logistics for the August interviews. (See the Interview Process Overview document used to guide candidates.) (Opportunity 180, Strapi)
- Statutory next step. After interviews, the Board will submit three qualified candidates to the Governor for appointment, consistent with the process summarized in the Department’s press release (citing NRS 385.150). (Nevada Department of Education)
Sources you can verify
- Official agenda (Item 8 text & scope). Nevada State Board of Education, Agenda – July 30, 2025. (Strapi)
- Official press release (names of six finalists & process). Nevada State Board of Education Selects 6 Superintendent Candidates for Interviews (Aug. 1, 2025). (Nevada Department of Education)
- Support materials (applications, rubrics, process docs, run-of-show). July 30 meeting materials page and linked PDFs (Applicant packets, score matrix; interview questions/rubrics; performance tasks; run-of-show; interview process). (Nevada Department of Education, Strapi)
- Independent recap with procedural specifics and applicant numbers referenced during the meeting. Opportunity 180, Nevada Ed-Watch: State Board of Education 7/30/25. (Opportunity 180)
Note: As of today, the official minutes for the July 30 meeting are not posted on the Board’s 2025 Meeting Materials page (the agenda and support materials are posted; the “Meeting Minutes” link isn’t active yet). If/when minutes are posted, they’ll provide vote counts/motions verbatim. (Nevada Department of Education)
Final Thoughts
I Would like to encourage everyone reading this article to show up and participate at the Board Meetings Scheduled for August 28th, and August 29th, at 9 AM
Express your concerns and or thoughts in public comment the meetings are at the following location
State of Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau
7230 Amigo St, Las Vegas, NV 89119
This is where the Interviews with the 6 candidates will be conducted over the next two days to select 3 finalists to provide the governor with so that he may choose one of those three to be the next Nevada State Board of Education Superintendent.