Views: 13
Published by Stephen Phillips, May 31st, 2025 @ 3:08 am P.S.T.
If you wish to watch the full board meeting we have it embedded directly below this header. What follows is the article.
Lets get into our coverage.
For purposes of clarity i have outlined in bullet points below the relevant items of concern that we will cover in this article.
- Agenda Item 7. Public Hearing for the Repeal of Regulations pertaining to NAC 388.460 – 388.488 (For Possible Action) and Neil Rombardo’s public comment where he points out some major red flags and inconsistency therein.
- Agenda Item 8. Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action Regarding the Read by Grade 3 Assessment Selection (Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action)
- Agenda Item 9. Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action Regarding the Superintendent Search Criteria (Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action)
- The Surprise Introduction of AB 584 without proper notification to the Nevada State Board of Education.
The first relevant portion of this meeting is Agenda Item 7. Starting off with Office of Comprehensive Student Services (OCSS) Julie Bowers
According to Julie Bowers
“NAC sections 388.460 through 388.488 must be repealed because they explicitly reference
and were designed to implement NRS sections 395.30, 395.40, 395.50, and 395.60, which
have since been repealed. Maintaining regulations that are directly tied to non-existent
statutory authority creates confusion and lacks a legal basis for their continued
enforcement. The outdated application process for out-of-district placement described in
these NAC sections has also been replaced by the CASE process, as outlined in NRS
388.5223 – 388-5243 and its implementing regulations, NAC 388.319 and NAC 388.323.
Therefore, to ensure regulatory accuracy, consistency with current law, and to avoid
confusion, NAC sections 388.460 through 388.488 should be repealed”
You may find the block quote referenced above from her statement in the embedded pdf below on page 3 or at the this link
Next we have Chief General Counsel for the Washoe County School District Neil Rombardo’s Comments on Agenda Item 7.
Full disclosure It should be noted before hand that Washoe County School District is currently in active Litigation against the Nevada Department of Education.
If we look at NAC 388.460 shown below in the following 2 screenshots
We can clearly see nowhere does it reference NRS 395.30, 395.40, 395.50, or 395.60 it does however reference NRS 388.5219. if you click the link in the pdf under section 3 of NAC 388.460 where that reference is made you will find it incorrectly links to https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRSRepealed/R_R022.html#repeal388_5219 which upon further investigation is the incorrect link pertaining to the repeal of NRS 388.5219
The correct link is https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRSRepealed/R_R023.html#repeal388_5219 and as shown below it directly links to a page showing 388.5219 was Repealed in 2015. It is unclear if this was an accident or done intentionally.
If you click on the link that says Page 3735 it links to another page that clearly shows no mention of the repeal of 388.5219, however under section 30 you will find the following
Sec. 30. NRS 387.1221, 395.001, 395.0065, 395.0075, 395.008, 395.010, 395.030, 395.040, 395.050 and 395.060 are hereby repealed.
So now the question becomes why didn’t Section 30. reference NRS 388.5219 being repealed. I find that to be a red flag and inconsistency with the NAC388460Packet.05022025.54.pdf packet.
Next lets look at NAC 388.462
if you click on the link where it says NRS 388.5211 under section 1. it takes you to another incorrect link https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRSRepealed/R_R022.html#repeal388_5211 again the correct link should be https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRSRepealed/R_R023.html#repeal388_5211 as shown below.
When you click on where it says Page 3757 again it references the same link as the previous NAC.
when it comes to the link where it says NRS 388.5243 it links to a current existing statute as shown below
As Neil Rombardo points out in his public comment it does appear we are being misled.
I think it would behoove us all to do our due diligence and investigate the remaining NAC’s which you can find in bright red at the following link https://webapp-strapi-paas-prod-nde-001.azurewebsites.net/uploads/NAC_388_460_Packet_3990b090af.pdf. I will leave this task to you the reader. If you care about public education as i do please take the time to do your research and get to the truth. And if your able show up to the next Nevada State Board of Education meeting Which will take place on Wednesday, June 25th, 2025 at 2080 E. Flamingo Road
Las Vegas, NV 89119
and please give a public comment to express your thoughts we highly encourage it. We need community engagement and involvement. The more the better.
You can also find the dates and times of all the upcoming Nevada State Board of Education meetings on their N.S.B.O.E. 2025 Meeting Materials page.
Lets listen to some clarifying questions asked by Board President Dr. Katherine Dockweiler and the Answers to them by Deputy Attorney General Greg Ott
According to Greg Ott. Julia Bowers is correct and accurate stating that NRS 395 existed prior to 2015 under the old system of funding. He further states that the Most of the Regulations that Mr Rombardo provided were last adopted and amended in 1996 with the exception to that being NAC 388.460 being amended in 2019 under the definitional section. With the remaining NAC’s not being touched in the last 20 years. He further mentions that the current funding system in use is the Case system (Contingency Account for Special Education Services).
According to Googles AI Overview
“Yes, the Case system (Contingency Account for Special Education Services) was established in Nevada in 2015 to fund extraordinary special education expenses. This system provides reimbursement to school districts and charter schools for costs that are not part of their typical special education service delivery.”
source: Google A.I. Overview
Lets briefly analyze that information and come to a rational conclusion in my own words in Q: & A: format
Q: Is this new information consistent with what we saw and found regarding Mr. Rombardo’s assessment?
A: Partially, it does appear that the reason for the inconsistencies could be due to the information clarified by Greg Ott. However there are some indicators that lean toward notice and open meeting law violations as stated by Mr Rombardo which in my opinion is what he was ultimately pointing out.
Let’s listen to what Board Member Danielle Ford, and her A.I. Sidekick named “Muse” have to say on the matter
As Board Member Danielle Ford & Muse point out the information provided by Mr Rombardo isn’t public in the Board’s Meeting Agenda materials which of course indicates a possible open meeting law violation. She further goes on to state that based on this it does appear that the purpose in the notice is misleading, however she clarifies she is not assigning intent to anyone in that regard, simply stating that the notice does appear to be misleading. I Agree with her on this point based on the information we’ve already covered in this article. Furthermore she points out that the notice claims their is no public or fiscal impact, however the notice’s claim is untrue due to the fact that there is the residential placement aspect regarding washoe county and the financial impact could fall to the district if the motion to repeal the specified NAC’s is passed.
Lets move on to some final thoughts by Board Member Hughes, Interim Superintendent Steve Canavero, Neil Rombardo and Board Member Keys Followed by the motion and final vote on how this Agenda Item went down.
Board member Tim Hughes points out that the board has had previous regulatory cleanup on the board, and touches on the fact that those previous regulatory cleanups lacked any active litigation that may have affected them. He noted that in his view there were no problems repealing those regulations due to this. Mr. Hughes emphasized that the regulatory process should be separated from any active litigation that may be in play. He then asks what the obligation for the district when there is a question about who is paying when these kind of issues come up. Interim Superintendent Steve Canavero states that the obligation for the fiscal impact then falls to the district level in that circumstance. He further states that he feels there are certain delays in contract signings and other circumstances similar where the situation doesn’t align with what the law says and how it is implemented. Board member Hughes then asks Mr. Canavero if in the current situation does that mean that Washoe county is not upholding their good faith requirements. Mr. Canavero then replied saying that was one of the first conversations he had with Counsel and Mr. Rombardo and stated he did not want to comment on that at this time due to the active litigation. Mr. Rombardo then asks to speak and states that his District is completely dedicated to making sure the needs of the student at the center of this litigation are met and that his district is even willing to pay out of their own budget if need be. He further points out that Mr. Canavero has exceeded the agenda which is another open meeting law violation. I happen to agree with him on this point. He goes on to state that he believes the Nevada Department of Education is trying to drag the board into the litigation so that they will have no choice but to be apart of it. In my personal opinion I think this is definitely a possibility as i have seen similar behavior on the local school board issues. He may be correct and if so it would not surprise me. However we will have to see how this all plays out down the road before we can make an accurate assessment on that front.
Member Hughes then motions to approve the repeal of the NAC regulations
Member Hudson seconds the motion. During the discussion portion following the second motion Board Member Angela Orr Speaks on why she believes this is different than previous Regulatory circumstances the board has faced due citing the fact that there is active litigation and for that reason reveals she will be voting nay on this item. The vote is then cast with the majority of the board voting to approve the motion, with Board Members Danielle Ford, and Angela Orr Voting Nay and no abstentions. Personally in my opinion i think this agenda item should have been tabled for two reasons, 1. the inconsistencies in the notice and potential open meeting law violations, and 2. The fact that there is active litigation in play that may be affected by this.
Agenda Item 8. Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action Regarding the Read by Grade 3 Assessment
Selection (Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action)
I will cover briefly a few talking points in regard to Agenda Item 8. and how the vote went regarding this in an effort to get to the most relevant and important 2 items in this article namely Agenda Item 9 and the Introduction of AB .
lets start with a few definitions
- What is Maps Testing?
According to Google’s AI Overview
MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) is a computerized, adaptive assessment used to measure a student’s academic achievement and growth in subjects like reading and math. It’s designed to personalize the testing experience, adjusting the difficulty of questions based on the student’s performance. The goal is to provide teachers with data to inform instruction and help students learn effectively.
source Google A.I. Overview
- What is The Read by Grade 3 assessment?
The “Read by Grade 3” (RBG3) assessment is a program aimed at ensuring students are proficient in reading by the end of third grade. It involves identifying students struggling with early reading, providing extra support, and often includes standardized assessments to determine reading proficiency. In some states, like Nevada, a passing score on a standardized test, like the Smarter Balanced ELA exam, is required for promotion to fourth grade.
source Google A.I. Overview
Interim Superintendent Steve Canavero starts off with a few talking points after the Agenda Item is introduced By Board President Dr. Katherine Dockweiler. He mentions the April 3rd meeting regarding this agenda item and the constraints set therein. He mentioned a recommendation to extend MAPS for one year he did mention some purchasing options which led me to believe that he is more geared toward vendor solutions which i do not agree with. there was some relevant back and forth from several speakers, Board Member Danielle Ford also made her position clear stating at minimum she would agree to the extending of MAPS for one more year, with her objections and concerns also being against wholesale vendor solutions and advocated for more community involvement and educator based solutions. Ultimately a motion was put forward to Extend MAPS for one more year which was passed 7-0.
Lets move on to the next relevant item Agenda Item 9. Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action Regarding the Superintendent Search Criteria (Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action)
Here’s where we get into the real subject matter of the fight this is a very important issue that all of us who care about public education should be paying attention to. The Search for the New Superintendent of The Nevada State Board President of the Board Dr. Katherine Dockweiler started off by referencing The April 3rd Nevada State Board Meeting where they agreed to conduct a survey to gauge what the community felt we needed in a search for another superintendent. Which i would like to point out Board Member Danielle Ford played a huge role in creating for the community. Hats off to her for that solid. Board President Dr. Katherine Dockweiler further informed the board that the results of the survey were ready and referenced the Material Packet for Agenda Item 9. which can be accessed directly here or you can view it in embedded form below.
As you can see for yourself the Material packet is quite a bit general as Board Member Danielle Ford rightly points out and immediately clarifies that she was under the impression that the exact wording of each response would be available for the Board and the Community to see in the interest of transparency. Board President Dockweiler further clarifies that she does not object to that request and that those results had not yet been posted but could be very quickly, she further clarifies that Board Member Ford’s request is in alignment with the fact that the final draft date for the results is the June 25th, 2025 Board Meeting and that there is no problem in fulfilling that request. Student Board Member Keys also chimed in with input on the survey from the community of students he represents. He pointed out that most students want someone that is hands on for the community and that a few even stated they wanted someone who had children in the system themselves. The student input also revealed that they wanted someone who had some teaching experience as well as some administrative experience Member Keys relayed. He also revealed that when he asked the student community whether or not they felt it was important to have someone that was from Nevada. They responded that they felt it was more important to have someone that understood how we do things here in Nevada. aka “The Nevada Way” I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment as a local native to Las Vegas, NV and a huge proponent of Local Governance as encouraged by the Founding Fathers. Member Keys further noted the student community wanted someone focused on mental health as well as several other key factors. Further thoughts by Board Member Danielle Ford clarified that the indicators pointed to the fact that generally her constituents wanted someone who is going to be a fierce advocate for public education in Nevada. She further pointed out that in her personal view she felt it was important that we not overlook someone that may not know all the answers but is Nevada-Heart centered and could grow into the role with the proper training and support. I Completely agree with her on this point as a fellow local native and community advocate. We need someone who genuinely cares about public education and is going to put the community of Nevada first. Board Member Hughes chimed in and pointed out that he felt Depth of Skill was important when performing the search for the new Superintendent. He also cautioned that we shouldn’t be thinking in terms of insiders or outsiders in the interest of inclusiveness based on his observation that in previous selection processes he felt some good candidates were missed out on due to this kind of attitude. Hmm i wonder what selection process he is referring to? Could it be the recent C. C. S. D. Superintendent Selection? I’d say it’s a good bet in my personal opinion. Board member Tate Else also chimed in saying that he felt it was important to get something started and echoed some of Board Member Hughes sentiments by not backing ourselves into a corner. In the interest of keeping this article to the most relevant points i will move on to discussion regarding the decided timeline the board ultimately agreed on for this Superintendent Search. The discussion was suggested the final date to turn in the results and any final result data regarding the survey could be set to June 6th, which gives time for the final draft of the report to be formulated by the next board meeting on June 25th, 2025. It was further revealed that at that meeting the goal would be to have a final draft decided on by the end of the meeting that could then post and be public from July 1st through July 20th. Following that would be the July 30th. Nevada State Board of Education Meeting although it should be pointed out there were some questions and clarifications on a few details one being the question of any possibility of closed session taking place with a clarification of negative due to public meeting law. It was further revealed that Greg Ott would Work hand in hand with a representative of H.R. which is the Department of Human Resources which is a sub department of the Department of Administration would assist in crafting the questions and the candidate selection process. Student Board Member Keys made a great point by asking the question if there was any possibility of somehow redacting certain identifiers for candidates in the interest of preserving working relationships for which he cited an example using the working relationship between a superintendent and a board president hypothetically speaking to which Greg Ott replied that redacting portions of data for certain candidates could create issues in allowing the board to get the full breadth of each candidacies qualifications, but that he would look into it. And Finally Board Member Danielle Ford and Her A.I. Sidekick Muse Chimed in. According to Board Member Ford Muse was given the timeline to analyze clarifying that Muse had already been feed the entire history of the Nevada Processes and Muse responded that it was a tight but doable timeline. Muse also broke down 3 realistic cautions that the board could use. It should be noted that Board Member Ford States she is not in favor of option 3 but she will state it for clarity in the interest of transparency.
- Scoring with a rubric and individual pre-ranking with no deliberation. Each board member receives a rubric and scores applicants independently before the July 30th Meeting. The rubric would include values from the survey. Examples include Nevada Experience, Advocacy, Equity, etc. Scores would be submitted to the N.D.E. or the President who compiled a ranked list without board discussion. At the July 30th Meeting the Full Board would review the compiled data and firmly selects interviewees in public. Why it Works: it keeps the selection process transparent and avoids communications issues under O.M.L.
- Applicant Review Sub Committee. the board could formally create a Sub Committee On June 26th to review the applications between July 1st and July 30th. That group for instance 3 voting members could meet publicly to review applications and bring back a recommended finalist for full board approval July 30th. We would need a tight agenda and clear evaluation criteria. Why it Works: It keeps the full Board clean of pre-decision but allows for clear focus review and prep.
- Structured Review by N.D.E. and Board Ranking N.D.E. Staff. That is all applications for minimum qualification, then presents anonymous summaries in the July 30th Packet. Board members read and come prepared to nominate the 3 finalists each at the July 30th meeting. The tally is done live and finalized with the most nominations being publicly selected for interview. Why it Works: It works because its transparent and low risk and moves the discussion into public domain.
Muse further states that Regardless of which of these 3 options are chosen the discussion should be framed around community involvement. Board Member Ford Concurs with Muse especially on that last point, and recommends that she is in favor of the 1st option provided by Muse. Board President Dockweiler then asks if it is possible to employ that option while still being in compliance. Greg Ott Replied yes that should be possible.
It was decided that at the June 25th Meeting they will finalize the position description and how they will go about selecting the questions for the criteria they are looking for.
And finally The Surprise Introduction of AB 584 without proper notification to the Nevada State Board of Education.
I would encourage each of you to listen to what Board Member Ford has to say from her X Post/Tweet Embedded below and follow the links and discussion provided in the comments.
Last night I testified in opposition to AB 584 and if you’ve been following my posts, you won’t be surprised why…
— Danielle Ford 💙📚 (@TrusteeFord) May 23, 2025
This bill, introduced by the Governor late in the Legislative session and presented by the interim State Superintendent just a month into the role, is a full-blown… pic.twitter.com/PS2kuQknrH
You may also access the overview of AB 584 here for your own viewing or above.
I Encourage each of you who care about the Future of Public Education in Nevada to show up and voice your concerns and questions at the June 25th, board meeting.
Leave a Reply