WestEd study finds Nevada's extra money for at-risk students did not improve test scores or graduation odds

What the study found

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that a study by the research agency WestEd found extra state money for students at risk of not graduating high school did not improve their academic performance or their chances of earning a diploma. The state's Commission on School Funding approved the analysis Sept. 25.

According to the report, an artificial intelligence program effectively identified which students were at risk. But over the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years, "no impact was found on the impact of at-risk status on academic or attainment indicators," co-author Patrick McClellan told the Review-Journal.

McClellan, an education finance research associate at WestEd, wrote the report with Kelsey Krausen, WestEd's director of education finance. The study looked at graduation rates, chronic absenteeism and standardized test results in math, science, early literacy and English language arts.

How Nevada's at-risk funding works

Who gets the label

Nevada limits the at-risk label to students in the bottom 20 percent of Graduation Related Analytic Data, or GRAD, scores, the report said. That came to around 93,000 students statewide last school year. The AI-calculated score draws on roughly 70 measures of student need and performance.

How much money is involved

Schools receive about $3,320 in extra per-pupil funding for eligible at-risk students, an amount the report described as comparable to other states. The Clark County School District has more than $159 million allocated for at-risk weighted funding through June 30, 2027, according to its budget approved in May, the Review-Journal reported.

State law allows the money to be spent on services such as free pre-K programs, teacher professional development and reading skills centers.

Why many eligible students did not receive it

Nevada also provides weighted funds for students who are disabled or whose primary language is not English. Currently, students eligible for more than one weight bring in money for only one of their needs. McClellan said only about 52,000 of the roughly 93,000 eligible students received at-risk funding last school year, with the rest funded through other pools they qualified for.

Limits of the study and suggested changes

The authors acknowledged shortcomings. The analysis covered only two school years, and its results apply only to students on the cusp of eligibility for the at-risk label.

Still, the report said the findings raise questions about how Nevada distributes at-risk money and whether those funds should be allowed to combine with other weighted funds. Under a stacked weight model, students would receive extra funding for all of their needs.

If weights were allowed to stack, the authors suggested the state fund a set number of at-risk students rather than a proportion. Krausen said that approach would protect districts from losing money to enrollment decline. The authors also wrote that districts and schools may need coaching on how to use the funds effectively.

Differing views on what the results mean

The researchers

McClellan and Krausen said the study should not be read as a sign to give up on at-risk funding. McClellan said the lack of negative effects is reassuring. "There is likely not one intervention that fits the needs of all students," Krausen told the Review-Journal.

Policy groups

Amanda Morgan, executive director of Educate Nevada Now, said the results show the money is being targeted incorrectly, not that extra funding failed. She pointed to Clark County's former Victory Schools, in some of the state's highest-poverty ZIP codes, which she said received targeted state funding and produced positive outcomes. Morgan also said she knows of one school that discontinued intervention programs after losing $1 million in at-risk funding once enough students' GRAD scores improved.

Anahit Baghshetsyan, a policy analyst at the think tank Nevada Policy, said the study shows raising education funding does not automatically produce better results. She called the current approach "a waste of taxpayer money" and said she does not believe a stacked weight system would lead to better outcomes.

What to watch next

• How the Commission on School Funding responds as it considers the study's findings.
• Whether the state revisits how at-risk funds are distributed and whether they can combine with other weighted funds, questions the report raised.
• How the Clark County School District uses the more than $159 million in at-risk weighted funding allocated through June 30, 2027.