Politically Incorrectness

Exposing The Corruption in the Nevada State Board of Education, & C.C.S.D.

Nevada State Board of Education Meeting June 25th 2025

Nevada State Board of Education Meeting June 25th, 2025

Views: 3

Published by Stephen Phillips, July 26th, 2025 @ 11:45 pm P.S.T

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 we will stick to the most relevant agenda items as they pertain to the Nevada State Board of Education

  • Agenda Item 8. Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action Regarding the Nevada Educator Performance Framework (NEPF) Redesign Field Study Year 1 Review and Recommendations for Year 2 (Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action)
  • Agenda Item 9. Information and Discussion Regarding the Nevada Department of Education Efficiency Report (Information and Discussion)
  • Agenda Item 10. Information and Discussion Regarding the State Testing Calendar (Information and Discussion)
  • Agenda Item 11. Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action Regarding the Nevada Ready Assessments and the Procurement Timeline and Key Activities (Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action)
  • Agenda Item 12. Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action for the Finalization of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Search Criteria and Recruitment Process (Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action)

The first agenda item of relevance we will cover is Agenda Item 8

Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action Regarding the Nevada Educator Performance Framework (NEPF)

You can watch the full segment for Agenda Item 8 below

In order to give you the reader a clear understanding of what the Nevada Educator Performance Framework (NEPF) is and its history in Nevada I asked ChatGPT to explain the Nevada Educator Performance Framework (NEPF) based on the following link: https://doe.nv.gov/offices/office-of-educator-development-and-support/nepf

Here is what the response was

📘 What is the NEPF?

The Nevada Educator Performance Framework (NEPF) is the statewide evaluation system for both teachers and building‑level administrators. It assesses performance through a structured process involving observations, student outcomes, and professional responsibilities Nevada Department of Education+9Nevada Department of Education+9Nevada Department of Education+9.

📅 Legislative History & Timeline

🏆 Goals & Purpose of the NEPF

The framework is designed to:

  1. Stimulate student learning and growth
  2. Enhance educators’ instructional practices
  3. Guide human capital decisions (e.g., rewards, professional development)
  4. Foster stakeholder engagement in continuous improvement Nevada Department of Education+9Nevada Department of Education+9Nevada Department of Education+9

Its purposes include:

🧰 Framework Structure: Rubrics, Tools & Protocols

Who it applies to:

What it includes:

🔄 Continuous Improvement & Monitoring

✅ Summary

The NEPF is a comprehensive, legislatively grounded evaluation system designed to:

  • Measure educator effectiveness across multiple dimensions (observation, student outcomes, responsibilities)
  • Align evaluation with professional growth and accountability
  • Be flexible and inclusive of various educator roles
  • Promote continuous improvement through data‑driven supports

For the purposes of time and clarity i will cover these next few agenda items only briefly in an effort to get to the main story here which is Agenda Item 12. I will however touch on the key points in the remaining agenda items while providing some of the source materials in order for you the reader to be able to dig deeper if you so choose. Also full disclosure i have enlisted the help of ChatGPT A.I. with streamlining some portions of the article(namely all the bullet point portions of this article). With that being said let’s jump in to some of the key points made in the presentation by Kathryn Hoyt for Agenda Item 8.

Purpose & Outcomes

  • The presentation reviewed the implementation of the NEPF Redesign during the 2024–25 school year.
  • It also offered a platform for discussion on feedback received and how to refine the framework for 2025–26.

STIP Alignment

  • Directly supports STIP Target 2: Strengthening Educator Development, Retention & Recruitment, particularly through initiative 2B—leveraging professional development and technical assistance.

Field Study Implementation

  • The redesign was approved by Nevada’s State Board of Education on June 12, 2024.
  • Invitations went to Clark, Elko, Lincoln counties and charter authorities. Washoe declined; Lyon County replaced it.
  • Roughly 85 schools piloted the redesigned rubrics and tools during the 2024–25 academic year, supported by introductory meetings and feedback workgroups.

Key Changes vs. Consistencies

What Stayed the Same:

  • Domain weighting: Instructional Practice = 65%, Professional Responsibilities = 20%, Student Performance = 15%
  • Final ratings remain: Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective
  • Inclusion of strengths/growth notes and educator plan tracking.

What Changed:

  • Rubric scoring now uses a 1–4 scale by Standard rather than indicator-level scoring
  • Document length compressed—consolidation from ~24 to ~11 pages
  • Evidence requirement reduced to two pieces per standard instead of per indicator

Participant Feedback & Surveys

  • Winter survey (Dec 2–20, 2024): 256 respondents (209 teachers, 46 administrators, 112 principal supervisors)
  • Clarity: 83% of administrators and 66% of teachers agreed consolidation improved clarity.
  • Growth & Understanding: Mixed — administrators reported teacher understanding improved; some teachers found descriptors helpful.
  • Time efficiency: Majority felt evaluation was efficient, though teacher-side results were slightly lower.

Interviews & Workgroup Feedback (Spring 2025)

  • Virtual interviews in April with 17 participants (1 teacher, 10 administrators, 6 principal supervisors)
  • Challenges included scoring distinctions (especially between 3 vs. 4) and implementation consistency.
  • Suggestions: training on evidence collection and coaching, use of score justification checklists, sector-specific descriptor examples, and streamlining tools.

Tools Added for 2025–26

  • Introduction of a Conference Tool – Standards Checklist, designed to guide pre- and post-observation discussions and help unify evidence and feedback.

Recommendations for 2025–26

  • The Teachers and Leaders Council (TLC) recommended expanding the Redesign Field Study via an “open invitation” to all districts.
  • The Department of Education supports continuation with the current cohort plus broader participation.
  • Ultimately, the State Board voted to continue and expand the field study in year two, welcoming additional districts.

You may view the entire presentation below as an embedded pdf

8_nevada_educator_performance_framework_nepf_redesign_field_study_cb6aa73af7Download

Moving on to Agenda Item 9. Information and Discussion Regarding the Nevada Department of Education Efficiency Report (Information and Discussion)

You may watch the full segment for Agenda Item 9 from the June 25th, 2025 Nevada State Board of Education Meeting Below

Lets begin by breaking down some of the key takeaways from Agenda Item 9.

Executive Summary & Overview

Background & Purpose

  • A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued in April 2024, and Public Works LLC was contracted in August 2024 (with state board approval) to carry out the Efficiency Assessment
  • The assessment was initiated by the State Superintendent and Leadership Team to drive continuous improvement, transparency, and sustainability across the department.

Approach & Methodology

  • The methodology involved six key tasks:
  1. Project kickoff and internal coordination (Aug 2024)
  2. Surveys:
    • District superintendents and LEA leadership (168 invitations, 79% response)
    • NDE staff (launched Dec 2024, 56% response)
  3. Peer-state benchmarking using data from Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee, and Utah
  4. Two site visits (Carson City & Las Vegas, Oct 7–11, 2024)
  5. Stakeholder interviews and focus groups
  6. Final data synthesis and report drafting

Key Findings & Themes

District Collaboration & Communication

  • Only 38% of district respondents felt NDE fosters effective collaboration; 62% disagreed.
  • Similar concerns about external partnership: just 41% agreed communication was effective, while 59% disagreed
  • These perceptions suggest credibility issues stemming from inconsistent or duplicative directives internally and externally—impeding operational efficiency.

Organizational Streamlining & Structure

  • The assessment recommends a series of renamings and reorganizational shifts to better clarify roles and mission focus:
    • The Office of Student and School Support becomes Office for School Improvement for All Students
    • Educator Effectiveness and Family Engagement becomes School, Educator, & Student Learning Supports
    • The Student Achievement Division becomes Future Ready Students
  • These changes aim to align internal branding with broader strategic goals and promote clear accountability.

Suggested Roles to Improve Efficiency

  • Proposal to create:
    • An NDE-specific HR liaison to act as a central contact with state HR and address staffing/retention needs
    • A policy administrator role to ensure coherent policy development, compliance across offices, and consistent training

Implications & Recommended Actions

  • Restoring Credibility & Trust
    • Consistent messaging and coordination across NDE offices are critical to strengthening relationships with districts and external partners.
  • Operational Improvements
    • Consolidation of titles and realignment of divisions support clarity, help avoid duplication, and enhance focus across programs.
  • Talent & Policy Alignment
    • New liaison and policy administrator roles can reduce friction with state HR systems and improve internal policy delivery and compliance.

Final Takeaways

  • NDE leadership’s willingness to commission an external, peer-reviewed efficiency assessment reflects a commitment to continuous improvement and accountability.
  • While strengths exist, the assessment highlights significant needs in clarity of organizational structure, internal coordination, and external communication.
  • The proposed structural realignments and new role definitions are tailored to address these issues and support future efficiency at both systemic and operational levels.

You may view the entire 469 page Efficiency Assesment below as an embedded pdf

nde_efficiency_assessment_may_2025_10d2388b88Download

Following Agenda Item 9 The board took a brief recess before moving on to the next agenda item.

On to Agenda Item 10 Information and Discussion Regarding the State Testing Calendar (Information and Discussion)

Lets get into the key points outlined for Agenda Item 10.

Key State-Mandated Testing Windows

Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment (SBAC)

  • English Language Arts (ELA) & Mathematics: Grades 3–8
  • Science Assessments: Grades 5, 8, and high school
  • Testing Window for both: March 10 – May 5, 2026

ACT College & Career Readiness Assessment

  • Grade: 11
  • English & Mathematics
  • Paper/Pencil: February 24, 2026 (with accommodations during Feb 24–27 and March 2–6)
  • Available makeup administrations: April 7–10 & April 13–17, and another session April 21–24 & April 27–May 1, 2026

Nevada Alternate Assessment (NAA)

  • For students with significant cognitive disabilities
  • Grades: 3–8 and 11
  • English, Mathematics, and Science alternate assessments: March 10 – May 13, 2026

WIDA English Language Proficiency Assessment

  • For students identified as English Learners (ELs)
  • WIDA Initial Assessment for Kindergarten: January 5 – February 27, 2026
  • WIDA for Grades 1–12: January 12 – February 27, 2026

Career & Technical Education (CTE) Assessments

  • For CTE program completers
  • Main testing window: February 9 – March 20, 2026
  • Retakes: April 13 – 24, 2026

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

  • For selected students in Grades 4, 8, and 12
  • Subjects include reading, math, and for Grade 8, civics/U.S. history
  • Testing Window: January 26 – March 20, 2026

Kindergarten Entry Assessment (KEA) – Teaching Strategies GOLD

  • Grade: Kindergarten
  • Must be administered either within 15 days prior to school start or within first 45 instructional days of school year start

MAP Growth (NWEA)

  • Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) for reading and math across elementary grades
  • Reading (K–2): Winter term Nov 10 – Feb 13; Spring term Mar 9 – May 29
  • Reading/Math Grades 2–5: Fall, Winter, Spring windows defined similarly: Aug 11 – Oct 24; Nov 10 – Feb 13; Mar 9 – May 29

Summary Table

AssessmentGradesTesting Window (2026)
SBAC ELA & Math3–8Mar 10 – May 5
Science (SBAC & HS)5, 8, HSMar 10 – May 5
ACT (Paper/Online)11Feb 24; accommodations: Feb 24–27 & Mar 2–6
ACT Makeup11Apr 7–10 & Apr 13–17; Apr 21–24 & Apr 27–May 1
Nevada Alternate Assessment (NAA)3–8 & 11Mar 10 – May 13
WIDA for ELs (Initial & Summative)K–12Jan 5–Feb 27 (Summative Jan 12–Feb 27)
CTE AssessmentsProgram completersFeb 9 – Mar 20; retake Apr 13–24
NAEP4, 8, 12Jan 26 – Mar 20
KEA (Kindergarten Entry)K≤ 15 days pre‐school or within 45 instr. days
MAP Growth (Reading/Math)K–5Fall: Aug 11–Oct 24; Winter: Nov 10–Feb 13; Spring: Mar 9–May 29

Additional Context

  • This calendar is Nevada-specific, overseen by the Nevada Department of Education as part of the state’s assessment system, including MAP Growth, SBAC, ACT, WIDA, NAA, CTE, KEA, and NAEP
  • It’s a revision from May 28, 2025 and covers the academic year 2025–2026
  • Districts within Nevada must align their local schedules within these windows and comply with test security procedures and reporting timelines set by state and district guidance.

You may view the State Testing Calendar Presentation as an embedded pdf below.

10_state_testing_calendar_02a3e94d20Download

Next up we have Agenda Item 11. Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action Regarding the Nevada Ready Assessments and the Procurement Timeline and Key Activities (Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action)

You may view the presentation report below as an embedded pdf

11b_nevada_ready_assessments_and_the_procurement_timeline_and_key_activities_9d80da395dDownload

Lets Break down Agenda Item 11 with some key points to cover

At first when i asked ChatGPT to give me a summary of the report based on the source material report for Agenda Item 11. It quickly spat out a summary with key emphasis on the timeline & key activities and no emphasis on what the purpose of the report was and what role the State Board of Education played. Demonstrating the general rule of thumb when it comes to prompts. “Be Specific!” I’ll be honest though i tried watching the presentation provided from the video segment on this item several times and found it difficult to follow and hard to understand much as Board Member Danielle Ford Stated in her comments on the Agenda Item.

I Then Rephrased my prompt to the following

“explain to me everything from the report except the timeline. help me understand what the state board of educations role is”

On a side note you can see the timeline for the report

on pages 19 and 20 of the above embedded pdf

ChatGPT then broke it down for me as follows

Here’s a clear explanation of everything in the “Nevada Ready Assessments and the Procurement Timeline and Key Activities” report — excluding the timeline — with a focus on helping you understand the State Board of Education’s role and the overall assessment procurement process.

📘 Purpose of the Report

The report was created to inform the Nevada State Board of Education (SBE) about the upcoming procurement process for statewide assessments, which are required by federal law. It outlines:

  • The types of assessments involved
  • The goals of the procurement
  • How the SBE will participate in the process
  • The importance of stakeholder engagement

🧪 What Are the Nevada Ready Assessments (NRAs)?

These are federally mandated standardized tests that Nevada must administer under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). They include:

  • English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics: Grades 3–8
  • Science: Grades 5 and 8
  • Nevada Alternate Assessment (NAA): For students with significant cognitive disabilities in the same grades

These tests are critical for measuring student achievement, guiding school accountability, and informing state and federal education policy.

🛠️ What Is Being Procured?

Nevada is preparing to replace or renew contracts with vendors who:

  • Develop, deliver, and score the assessments
  • Provide platforms and technical systems
  • Generate reports for schools and parents

This is a major contract that spans multiple years and impacts how Nevada meets its federal testing obligations.

🏛️ What Is the State Board of Education’s Role?

The State Board of Education (SBE) plays a decision-making and oversight role in the assessment procurement process. Here’s what that means:

✅ 1. Approval Authority

The Board:

  • Approves the Scope of Work (SOW) – the document defining what the vendor must do
  • Approves the evaluation criteria for reviewing vendor proposals
  • Approves the composition of the evaluation committee that scores proposals
  • Approves the final vendor recommendation before any contract is awarded

📣 2. Public Accountability

As a publicly accountable body, the SBE ensures that:

  • The procurement aligns with student needs and educational goals
  • The public and educators have a voice through stakeholder input
  • The final solution supports equity, accessibility, and reliability in testing

👥 3. Engagement Oversight

The Board reviews and considers:

  • Input from district leaders, curriculum directors, teachers, parents, and others
  • Guidance from technical experts (e.g., Technical Advisory Committee)
  • Feedback from public comment periods

This ensures the process isn’t just top-down or bureaucratic — it’s informed by people closest to students.

⚖️ 4. Guardians of Process Integrity

The Board helps:

  • Prevent conflicts of interest
  • Ensure legal compliance with state and federal procurement laws
  • Keep the process transparent and fair

💬 Why Does the SBE’s Role Matter?

The decisions the Board makes shape the future of testing in Nevada for years to come. Their choices affect:

  • Which company delivers the assessments
  • What technologies are used (online, adaptive testing, etc.)
  • How accessible the tests are to all students
  • How data is reported and used by schools, parents, and policymakers

🔎 Summary (Without the Timeline)

  • Nevada is redoing its statewide testing vendor contracts
  • The State Board of Education must approve the scope, evaluation, and vendor
  • Stakeholders across the education system are providing input
  • The goal is to align with federal mandates while supporting Nevada’s local educational needs
  • The SBE acts as an overseer, approver, and public voice in this high-stakes process

Ah now that’s more like it.

I was relieved ChatGPT spat out something more useful and relevant this time in regard to my request.

Now i would like to get into some of the Board Members input on the report and some concerns expressed from some of them but first i would like to point out the options moving forward that the board refers to as option 1, option 2, option 3, the fourth way or option 4 are laid out as follows from page 23 of the report accessible from the above embedded pdf.

Options

  1. Participate in meetings initiated by NDE
    Led by the department, SBE kept apprised
  2. Participate and provide input (co-lead)
    Work groups and/or other activities co-led by NDE & SBE
  3. Lead the work with department support
    SBE initiates scope of work, committee selection, selection criteria. NDE assists with
    communication and scheduling
  4. Other

The first to chime in was Board Member Tricia Braxton. She expressed that she was leaning in the direction of wondering if the Board had to make a decision that day. She also expressed interest in discussion, however she felt that any decision making on this issue should be tabled for another meeting, which in my opinion is wise. Ann Marie Dickson then responded to Board Member Braxton by stating ideally they would like to have a decision by the board on their level of involvement by the Summative Pilot Evaluation on August 1st, 2025 by which point they should have the necessary data required from the results of that pilot. Interim Superintendent Steve Canavero chimed in by pointing out that because of underlying federal requirements in regard to the qualification of potential vendors it will probably flush out a good number of those vendors from qualifying and that he wanted the board to be aware of that. There was some further input from other members of the board such as Board Member Walker, and Board Member Tim Hughes. Board Member Braxton further expressed concern about the limited options set forth in the presentation citing that they are scenario based and asking what are we addressing. Citing that she hopes there would be complete collaboration and timeliness with gathering information.

Board Member Hughes then calls on Board Member Danielle Ford

who then delivers her thoughts with eloquent clarity and vision on what Board Member Hughes later will refer to as “The Fourth Way”

She mentions an option that other states such as Louisiana, Nebraska have implemented such as Developing our own assessment that still meets all the critical elements under ESSA which is the Every Student Succeeds Act, but are more aligned with local values and instructional priorities. Board Member Ford indicated that she would like the Board to Discuss the possibility of Nevada launching a pilot that is educator developed for assessment components while still meeting the critical elements for compliance. She explained that the presentation regarding the critical elements for compliance was a little hard to follow and understand as presented and then broke them down into four groups for ease of understanding. It should be noted that these are the only bullet points i did not generate from my ChatGPT.

The Federal Compliance Anchors that any state assessment system must meet under ESSA

  • Technical Quality.
  • Validity and Reliability.
  • Accessibility for all Students.
  • Fairness, and Lack of Bias.

Alignment and Rigor

  • Must be Aligned with State Academic Standards.
  • Must Cover the Full Depth and Breadth of Standards.
  • Must Reflect College and Career Readiness Expectations.

Inclusion

  • Must have Accommodations for Students with I.E.P.’s and English Learners.
  • Must have a 95% Participation Rate.
  • Must have Alternate Assessments for Students for 1% of Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities.

Reporting and Use Standards

  • Individual Student School Reports
  • Data used to Inform Instruction and School Accountability.

Board Member Ford then reflects on the fact that the above outlined 4 groups are All that is necessary to be included in a universal state assessment. Further stating that these are not tied to any specific vendors, and that they are principles. Specifying that Many States have met these through commercial testing, while also clarifying that other States have built their own systems and still complied. She goes on to mention that in the past there have been concerns about cost or feasibility, noting however that other states have shown that it is possible further stating that she would like to make sure that the Board doesn’t lock themselves into a 5 to 10 year contract with a vendor solution that would limit the Board’s long term flexibility. I myself share those concerns. Danielle further went on to say that she did some research in order to get an idea of what that could look like. What follows is what she described.

“Starting with a small cohort of Nevada Educators, creating sample assessments that are aligned to our standards and reflect the kind of learning that we actually want to see. We would use a pilot approach running side by side with the existing vendor test and evaluate the outcomes reliability and structural alignment.”

Member Ford further goes on to describe a vision of how that could look

“Parallel Development Year 1.

It would include a clause in this book of work for a parallel assessment innovation track led by non-educators, supported by N.D.E. to pilot performance based or standards aligned alternatives for future scaling.

This would be used to identify 3 to 5 districts to participate voluntarily, both urban and rural. we would assemble a Nevada Educators Assessment Cohort. Teachers, Curriculum, Experts and Assessment Designers. Partner with a higher ed or non-profit assessment for psychometric support. Year 2 would be field testing, pilot educator developed tasks in reading, writing, math or science. Collect data on student experience scoring reliability and instructional alignment. Train local scores or use A.I. assisted scoring with human validation. Continue using commercial assessments state-wide, no compliance risk. In the 3rd year would be a Board Decision where we compare the commercial and the homegrown system outcomes, we use real classroom feedback to inform future contracting or scaling. If it is strong then we scale that Nevada Developed Tool Statewide for full use in future cycles.”

Member Ford Clarifies that is only one idea she had but added that the Nevada State Board of Education also has lots of resources mentioning the Las Vegas Hotels and also Las Vegas PBS noting that it is a Huge resource for them, noting that those aren’t even the biggest resources.

I Must say i think her idea is not only novel but also brilliant.

It would allow us to pursue two avenues of testing outcomes without any risk to compliance standards simultaneously and ultimately deciding which one was best suited to the needs of the Community, Nevada Educators, as well as what i like to refer to as the Nevada-Heart Centered. I think this is probably one of the most efficient approaches that i have heard pitched and i think would give the SBE the most flexibility in regard to what level of involvement it will have in this process. That being said it is also worth noting that a lot of how the discussion will be had in this regard will be based on who becomes the new Nevada State Board of Education Superintendent. With this reflection in mind the board ultimately voted to move forward with option 2 unanimously.

Moving on to Agenda Item 12. Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action for the Finalization of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Search Criteria and Recruitment Process (Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action)

Below are the source materials for this agenda item as embedded pdfs.

12_cv_screening_rubric_bc5deb0b35Download
12_finalization_of_the_state_superintendent_of_public_instruction_search_criteria_and_recruitment_process_259a34927aDownload

Board Vice President Tim Hughes kicks off Agenda Item 12 by clarifying what is to be determined, discussed and accomplished for this agenda Item. Namely finalizing the State Superintendent Search criteria and recruitment process. Stating also that Board members will aim to finalize specific criteria to include in the public posting. Further specifying that the discussion will also cover the application component evaluation methods and a proposed timeline along with any legal guidance they may need along the way. He also stated that the goal is to have a post dated launch by July 1st, 2025. Board Vice President Hughes then recaps briefly what was discussed in previous meetings regarding the Superintendent Vacancy and Search, before segueing back into the stated goals for Agenda Item 12 at this meeting.

Board member Hughes first notes that most importantly the board would like to finalize the job description so they can get that up July 1st.

Secondly he specified the board would like to decide on a resume review process to narrow down the list of candidates.

Third he stated the board would like to decide on a process to develop interview questions.

Board member Hughes then proceeds to ask the board

If there are any questions, comments, or changes they would like to make. Board member Orr then responds by asking the Board to weigh in on the requirement to have been a classroom teacher. Expressing concern that the Superintendent role isn’t that connected to the classroom enough to make it a mandatory must for the Superintendent Search Criteria in her opinion. Board member Walker then chimes in concurring with Board member Orr. Board member Hughes then goes on to discuss what was discussed previously citing Depth of expertise which in his opinion he says could come from a lot of places and likely a depth of expertise in the education system. Which he notes could come from classroom experience, and that he sees depth of expertise as more the category and that the way one demonstrates that could be a variety of pathways and that maybe requiring a certain number of years of classroom experience which he expressed he felt didn’t make sense for the posting. Board member Braxton jumps in stating that she remembers discussing the Classroom Experience requirement, but also notes that Depth of Experience is very important because it doesn’t have a timeline on someones experience in a particular role. Stating that it would have a whole picture on someones ability to lead as well as collaborate with various aspects of authority. Following this Member Ford asks for clarification asking “At the end of this item we walk away with what, a rubric that we agree to is that correct right?” Member Hughes clarifies that the idea is that they have solidified the list of qualifications, so that they can then do one final update to the job description to get posted. And that following that they would begin the selection process. Member Ford then asks if there is any other document with a list of suggestions for qualifications outside of the community survey results. Board Member Hughes then clarifies that the initial artifact they had was from a prior job posting citing that it was shared during the April meeting.

Board member Ford expresses there are some things

That she would like to make sure are clearly articulated from her perspective and from what she believes is the perspective of her constituents. Which is one of many reasons that i think is what makes her such a great representative of her district and a great leader. She is doing exactly what she was elected to do, Look out for the people she represents which is a key role in many positions of public office especially in our Constitutional Republic and representative form of government. Member Ford then goes on to clarify that she would really like someone who has demonstrated experience in Nevada’s Education system, or a deep understanding of Nevada’s regional rural and governance context. She also clarifies her biggest point which she makes clear is that she strongly believes the main criteria for a Superintendent Search should be that they are Pro Public Education. She further states she would like any potential candidate to provide something that is a track record of commitment to strengthening public education systems over privatized external reforms. I also agree with this assessment. I also agree with this assessment. I think it is critical for the Next Superintendent to demonstrate this kind of a track record especially since the Nevada State Board of Education is responsible for all of Public Education in the state of Nevada.

Member Ford also points out that she has run all of the community responses through A.I. and the general theme that comes up in this regard is that the community wants Strong Communication and Leadership. She further explains that she thinks it needs to be broken down into two different subcategories to be looked at. Clarifying that she thinks the Board needs to look at how they communicate internally with their team. She says this aspect is very important as you won’t necessarily hear about that when they are active in that role but usually after their term which is why she emphasizes the importance on this. Secondly she emphasizes that the second subcategory would be public engagement and responsiveness i.e. How they communicated in the past with the media and with constituents as well as being transparent and inclusive in decision making. She also expresses that she feels the Board needs to determine which qualifications are most important Inquiring if the qualifications are going to be weighted or if there will be a 1-5 scale in the decision making process.

Board member Braxton then weighs in with further input.

She cites that there are 17 qualifications from the Job Posting and that they are fairly general, asking if the board would like to be specific regarding these items and how specific if so. Board member Hughes then weighed in with his perspective stating one of the things they noticed when comparing those 17 qualifications from April with the community feedback was that they saw a lot of overlap. Stating that the posting referenced in the April meeting was meant to be more general because the nuance of the State Board piece would be bringing that specificity to the selection process. Member Ford then poses a question asking if they are going to vote on the specificity of the qualifications and if those qualifications would be included in the Job Posting they put out for the Nevada State Superintendent position. Also asking alternatively if they would see an updated version of that posting before they took that vote, clearly wanting some more clarification on the process, something which i completely understand I’m very much the same way in that regard as i also generally require a full understanding of the process of something in order for me to be as fully engaged as possible. Vice President Tim Hughes clarifies further from his understanding that he thinks what they could do is have the State Board Authorize a final review in order to be in compliance with Open Meeting Law before posting. Stating alternatively that otherwise the board would have to have the discussion, do the update and then have it come back to the Full Board which he states would probably push the timeline back a bit also asking for clarification on this if he’s right. Interim Superintendent Steve Canavero chimes in stating that he thinks that’s generally right, stating that open meeting law generally kicks in when you have more than a quorum of the Board looking at something. Further citing that the Board could give general direction to update the job posting in accordance with a motion or specific directives that they may make and then delegate one board member to finalize and approve that, Stating that you could do that without having to go through the structure of another board meeting.

Board Member Ford then promptly volunteers to be that delegate offering herself as tribute.

She mentions that she came up with a list of ways they could edit that document to be reflective of the boards previous discussion and survey questions. Offering to read that list to the rest of the board upon their request.

Board member Braxton jumps in stating that her concern is time. Stating that the board would like to get this out expeditiously as they mentioned in these meetings, saying if that they are looking at a July 1st date with a 20 day period afterwards that the boards time could be used to start the process and that any further input could be used for the criteria. Member Orr then speaks her two cents stating that she would like to second Member Braxtons suggestion. Member Hughes then calls on Board Member Hudson to voice her input on the matter. Member Hudson asks if the Classroom Experience is non-negotiable citing the fact that it says Direct-Classroom experience or if the Board is open to updating that criteria citing the fact that they would need to change that terminology to reflect the update in the Job Posting. Member Owens then voices her thoughts on the issue wondering if they would like to modify that to say Educational Expertise citing the fact that the referenced criteria from the April meeting cites Classroom-Experience as well as Experience working with English Language Learners, Special Ed, Experience with youth in foster care etc. Suggesting that they combine Criteria 3 & 4 from the April meeting to say Educational Expertise. She also asks member Hughes to reiterate all the items on that list for clarification.

Member Hughes clarifies in response to Member Owens request.

Stating that he felt most of what we the board thought was on that first draft was already sort of there. Stating that the language is a little different Stating that the board talked about “Committed to all students, Visionary Leadership, Collaborative and Approachable, Strong Communication, Integrity and Ethical Decision making, Innovative and Forward thinking, Knowledgeable in Education Policy and Practice, Equity Focused, Resilient and Adaptable, and a Student Centered Mindset”

He then calls on Board member Ford who has a lot to say on the matter and rightly so. Let’s hear what she has to say.

“I’m just like, first of all i completely agree we need to get this done, i don’t support like making the process go longer, I’ve been saying that since the beginning. But also what was the point of the survey and what was the point of our discussion about this if we’re just going to use the exact same document that we had. Again no shade to NDE I understand how under resourced everybody is. I understand that the state board has literally no authority because in 2011 a bill was passed to change the makeup of the state board and put it under the governor or the superintendent and the governor not us so you know I’m just kind of sitting here and smile and wave sometimes i guess but i get it. I’m saying i get it. I get it. However we should have had a new document in front of us. We have now.. First of all A.I. Exists. so the fact that we did not put all of the survey through it to at least present to us that information and that there wasn’t a transcript of our last conversation about this put through A.I. to give us a rundown of what the boards opinions are and then throw this pdf from April into all of that and ask A.I. to give you a new document that encompasses all of that is no so. That would have taken me 95 seconds to do it. So the fact that we’re like sitting here looking at a document from years ago going over to our constituents and saying we’re trying to do things differently and better but using the same materials. In 2025 when A.I. exists and now that we have reasoning models and deep thinking models, and deep research. I don’t know what world this is right now. So again I’m not pointing fingers but this is crazy. Anyone could have called me and said hey put all of this information together and i would have said check your email in 5 minutes. So we would have had a working document to look at is unacceptable. I criticized CCSD so much for all the things they did and didn’t do but they are so much better at this kind of stuff, providing the board with the information they need and having at least a plan or some framework to work off of, because i don’t know if I’m like the person saying the emperor has no clothes or whatever but like this is not being a board member that’s not how this works. So I’m super frustrated, I would love to be able to go on facebook now and tell my constituents ‘Great news! Just like I told you how all of your survey responses were put into that. They were look at this application can’t you see that it reflects your voice but now i can’t say that. It’s very frustrating.”

I Must say i agree 100% with her sentiment and completely share in her frustration

Member Ford makes some absolutely spot on arguments when expressing that frustration in regards to the boards shortcomings in this regard and I couldn’t agree with her more even if i tried.

As much as i would like to go on covering the rest of the discussion by the board from this point in order to make sure this article isn’t overtly lengthy i will simply relay the ultimate decision of the board regarding Agenda Item 12 while demonstrating the complete time saving usefulness of modern A.I. to Illustrate Danielle’s Point.

I Asked ChatGPT the following question!

“how did the Nevada state board of education vote on agenda item 12 on June 25th, 2025?”

It promptly and efficiently gave me a breakdown of exactly what i was looking for in literally less than 2.5 seconds.

Here is what it said.

Based on the publicly available agenda and coverage, Agenda Item 12 at the Nevada State Board of Education meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 2025 was titled:

“Information, Discussion, and for Possible Action for the Finalization of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Search Criteria and Recruitment Process.” (doe.nv.gov)

According to a summary published by Opportunity 180 (Nevada Ed‑Watch), the Board voted to move forward with the superintendent search process, including:

  • Finalizing the application materials and criteria,
  • Adding preferred qualifications (such as Nevada-based experience, inclusive leadership, and public education commitment),
  • Approving submission of candidate video presentations and evaluation rubric development,
  • Directing that the full board would review all candidates and develop performance tasks and interview questions, with Member Braxton overseeing the evaluation materials before posting. (opportunity180.org)

In short: the Board approved Agenda Item 12, adopting the refined search criteria and moving the superintendent recruitment forward with the specified structure and timeline.

That covers the Board’s action on Agenda Item 12 during the June 25, 2025 meeting.

And finally i would like to get to the last portion of the meeting which is Public Comment

With Anna Binder providing a public comment before the end of the meeting.

“Thank you Mr. Vice chair Members of the Board, I’m Anna Binder. I’m a parent, advocate, and proud member of Nevada’s disability and education communities and the interim chair and Vice Chair of the Nevada Governors Council on Developmental Disabilities. I’m speaking today with a simple but important ask that we commit to using person first language when referring to students who participate in alternative assessments these are students with the most significant cognitive disabilities not cognitively disabled students. They are children first. Learners first, and Humans first. Federal guidance already models this language and so should we. When we reduce a child to a diagnosis we risk reinforcing stigma even unintentionally. But when we say students with disabilities or students with the most significant cognitively disabilities we uphold both dignity and clarity it’s not just respectful it’s accurate and aligned with how our communities expect to be seen. These students are held to high expectations and are achieving real academic gains under alternate academic standards. Our language should reflect the same belief in their humanity and potential. Thank you for considering this small change that sends a powerful message of inclusion for all of Nevada’s students. And for the record I’ve been attending these meetings well before Danielle Joined this board.”

I would like to second Anna’s Ask as a former student of CCSD with disabilities (Namely ADHD) i can speak to where she is coming from as i remember feeling much stigma as a student when i was a student and remember thinking why do they put me in this little box when i know i am so much more than that defined box. I think it’s not only appropriate but necessary to ensure respect, as well as inclusive and equal treatment in regard to “Students with Disabilities” or “Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities”

Thank you for your time and interest in this article. This is Stephen Phillips Signing off at 11:45pm P.S.T. on July 26th 2025