HOPE FOR SYSTEMIC SUPPORT FOR AT-RISK STUDENTS REDUCED TO TRIAGE

Uncategorized  |     |  

After thousand of students lose supports and schools lose millions of dollars, the Commission on School Funding will revisit at-risk model

For years, Educate Nevada Now has warned that Nevada’s new system for determining which students qualify for at-risk funding has serious problems.The new method has suffered from a lack of transparency, arbitrary eligibility cut-offs unrelated to actual student needs, and unpredictable funding for schools and students.

Under Nevada’s education funding formula, students who are considered “at-risk” receive additional funding on top of the base amount schools receive per student. Similar weights also exist for English Learners and Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) students. Special Education, though funded differently, can also be expressed as a weight.

This past school year, Nevada communities experienced the concerns we identified with the at-risk formula first hand. Districts lost millions of dollars in at-risk funding, with CCSD alone losing $36 million. Thousands of students who previously qualified for support were suddenly ruled ineligible by a complicated AI-driven formula. The total projected number of eligible students went from almost 70 thousand in 2020 to nearing just 60 thousand now.

A 2025 report created for the Commission on School Funding exposes the shortfalls of the current at-risk model. Though the model appears to identify students in need (which no one disputes), its rigid eligibility, limited number of students served, and reliance on volatile factors mean vulnerable students are still being left behind.

This Friday, May 15, the Commission on School Funding will discuss this at-risk albatross. We are hopeful that they will consider not only the current shortfalls, but some solutions as well.

Too Few Served with an Arbitrary Cap

The current model only serves students it deems in the bottom 20th percentile of need. This arbitrary and rigid cut-off means that regardless of a student’s actual need for additional support, if they do not fall under that threshold, they are left behind. This 20th percentile simply ensures the state serves fewer students; it does not serve all at-risk students, only what the AI formula deems most at-risk.

ENN has advocated for using Direct Certification, an established method of determining and verifying a student’s economic disadvantage, as a reliable method for determining at-risk eligibility. Not only do many states utilize this method, but research consistently finds economic disadvantage as a reliable proxy for whether a student may need additional resources to succeed.

Direct Certification closely overlaps with students identified in the current at-risk formula, but it also accounts for additional students in need. It does not arbitrarily cap student eligibility and supports what we refer to as the “house of cards” students – students that may look stable during a single snapshot in time, but are one life event away from their academic careers being thrown into disarray. For example, one school principal told ENN that they have an unhoused student that they have painstakingly tried to keep on track but who is not eligible under the current formula. Under Direct Certification, that student would likely receive the additional support they need to stay on track.

Under Direct Certification, approximately 90 to 100 thousand students would qualify for the at-risk weight. Under the current model, about 60 thousand students qualify. The state may not be able to immediately fully fund the weight when adding the additional students, but it could steadily work towards fundingall at-risk students.

Punishing Success

One key reason the state moved to weighted funding and away from categorical programs like the SB 178 grant, a program that attempted to identify and fund students struggling academically, is because of the extreme volatility for districts, schools, and students. However, the report revealed that the current at-risk model ended up with the same shortcomings as the previous grant it was trying to correct.

Because the current at-risk method relies on a “GRAD Score” that attempts to identify and fund students “least likely to graduate,” once a student begins to see success with the additional resources, they lose their eligibility. The formula uses several risk factors to determine this GRAD Score, and these factors in and of themselves are not at issue. The issue arises with the volatility schools and students experience as they see growth in those factors.

This creates major challenges for schools. At-risk funding is supposed to support programs, staffing, and services for vulnerable students. But when funding changes dramatically from year to year, schools cannot reliably maintain those supports.

Ironically, students can lose access to the very resources that helped them succeed in the first place.

Fluctuating GRAD scores, coupled with the 20th percentile cap, meant that from the 2022/23 to 2023/24 school year, nearly 17,000 students lost their at-risk designation and the funding attached to it because they no longer met the GRAD score threshold. The weights transferred to different students, who in turn will eventually experience the same issue just as they begin to reap the benefits of those resources.

The report to the Commission found the GRAD score led to nearly a 30% swing in resources while the Direct Certification method was only about 10%. The reduced fluctuation of Direct Certification, coupled with the additional students served, would offer much more stable funding to both districts and schools.
Below are a few quotes in an article in the Review-Journal from school staff who lost SB178 funding which used a volatile funding mechanism similar to the current at-risk system. The at-risk weight was supposed to replace SB178 and address deficits, instead 17,000 students have lost supports in one year due to changes in factors. 

“As a teacher, it’s like we are being penalized for doing so good,” said Lilly Kulaszewski, a first-grade teacher at Helen Smith Elementary. “We are being penalized for caring so much and almost making the impossible possible.” Las Vegas Review Journal

 

“The part that disturbed me about the SB 178 money — it was an arbitrary line that was drawn,” Kuzma said. “We were below it, now we’re above it, so we just lost it.” – Principal Kuzma at Rancho

 

“I know some of my parents on the (school organizational team) were like, why do we keep trying hard?” she said. “Why don’t we just let it slide a year and get funding back?” – French Elementary, Principal Tammy Villarreal-Crabb

Nevada is Unique, but Not in a Good Way

Presentations from WestEd to the Commission on School Funding have also highlighted another major concern: Nevada is currently the only state that does not allow students to “stack” funding weights. In practice, this means that if a student qualifies for both Special Education and at-risk services, the student only receives the Special Education funding, not both. This approach fails to recognize that multiple overlapping challenges require additional and very different supports.

Nevada is also the only state using the current at-risk eligibility AI-based model to determine state funding. And, this model runs exclusively through a tech company’s proprietary identification system.

Opportunity for Change

The good news is that the Commission on School Funding is scheduled to discuss the at-risk weight tomorrow. We are hopeful that this discussion will address the shortcomings of the current system and lead to a more stable and equitable approach that supports all vulnerable students over time.

Welfare for the Wealthy

In other news, after Texas pushed through its voucher program with the help of campaign spending from out-of-state billionaires, the early application results are confirming what many public education advocates warned from the beginning. Despite being sold as a lifeline for students struggling in public schools, roughly 75 percent of applicants were already attending private schools or being homeschooled.

That mirrors what has happened in states like Indiana, North Carolina, Arizona, and others, where the majority of students receiving vouchers were never enrolled in public schools to begin with. Instead of expanding opportunity for underserved students (as advertised by voucher proponents), these programs often function as public subsidies for families who could already afford private school tuition.

Conflict of Interest

Speaking of benefiting from voucher programs, the American Federation for Children, the Betsy DeVos-funded organization that has operated heavily in Nevada and spent more than $10 million nationwide through its Super PAC supporting conservative candidates, is now creating its own Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO).

That means the same organization lobbying aggressively for vouchers and funding political campaigns to expand privatization efforts will now be able to cash in on a percentage of private school scholarship funds. In other words, the group advocating for the program now stands to financially benefit directly from the very system it helped create.

As a reminder, during the last legislative session Governor Lombardo attempted to raise the income eligibility cap for Nevada’s voucher-style scholarship program, a move that would have expanded access for wealthier families. That proposal ultimately failed.

At the same time, Nevada private schools receiving voucher funds are still not held to the same accountability standards as public schools. They are not required to administer the same state assessments, and the limited testing data they do provide offers only a partial picture of student performance. For those who frequently demand accountability from public schools, there remains remarkably little accountability attached to voucher-funded private education.

Rest in Peace, Joyce

We are deeply saddened by the passing of Senator Joyce Woodhouse, a tireless advocate for students, teachers, and families. Her unwavering belief in the power of education as a pathway to opportunity transformed countless lives across our state. While we mourn her loss, we know Nevadans are committed to carrying forward the legacy she built. Our hearts are with her loved ones and all who were fortunate enough to learn from her leadership.