Cut the Clutter: How Nevada Is Changing Reporting Requirements to Support Smarter School Funding 

June 17, 2025

In a time when data-driven decision-making is more critical than ever, education agencies are increasingly asking, are we collecting the right data—or just more of it?

That question was at the heart of a recent collaboration between the Nevada Department of Education (NDE) and WestEd in partnership with Augenblick, Palaich & Associates (APA). Our team worked with NDE to take stock of more than 200 individual reports required of school districts and charter schools to identify opportunities for reducing administrative burden while maintaining the data necessary for smart policy and accountability.

The Challenge: Too Much Data, Not Enough Use

Every year, local education agencies (LEAs) in Nevada must submit a wide range of data reports to comply with both state and federal requirements, but many of these reports go unused, are duplicative, or are collected more frequently than necessary.

Leaders at NDE and members of the state’s Commission on School Funding recognized this challenge and asked, Which reporting requirements can we eliminate, consolidate, or streamline to increase focus on what’s most important to measure and monitor progress in the state? The result was a first-of-its-kind inventory and evaluation of reporting requirements grounded in feedback from LEAs and the NDE offices that use—or don’t use—these data.

The Approach

Together with APA, we merged NDE’s internal list of required reports with a district-created list, ensuring a comprehensive accounting of all nonfederal reports collected statewide. LEA leaders were then asked to provide input on the time necessary to complete the reporting requirement and on whether the reporting requirement was duplicative of other reporting requirements. Next, NDE offices were asked to evaluate each report based on the following criteria:

• frequency—Is the current collection schedule appropriate?
• use—How often is the report used, and for what purpose is it used?
• redundancy—Does another report already collect the same information?
• value—Beyond compliance, how important is this report to the agency’s work?

This detailed input formed the foundation of our analysis and recommendations.

The Results

Over the course of 6 months, with input from NDE offices and LEA leaders, we identified

• 26 reports that could potentially be eliminated,
• 22 reports that could be streamlined or consolidated, and
• additional reports that are rarely used but that require further investigation before deciding on next steps.

In many cases, streamlining required nothing more than shifting to less frequent reporting schedules or combining redundant submissions. Eliminating reports, on the other hand, often required statutory or regulatory changes—an effort that NDE can now take on with a targeted list in hand.

Why This Matters Now

As resources become more constrained, LEAs and state education agencies (SEAs) have an even greater imperative to show that their investments are having their intended impact on student outcomes. This requires reporting and accountability systems that are streamlined and focused and that can clearly illuminate where progress is being made and where additional support is needed. This helps LEAs make informed decisions about which programs and interventions to prioritize to best meet students’ needs. In a funding environment where every dollar matters, time spent on a report that isn’t used translates to resources that take away from the classroom, away from planning, and away from students.

Taking stock of reporting requirements is no longer just something that’s nice to have; it’s a strategic imperative.

A Scalable Model for Other States

A well-designed reporting inventory is more than an exercise in compliance—it’s a blueprint for smarter governance. It helps state agencies

• identify and eliminate outdated or duplicative reporting on an ongoing basis;
• reduce administrative burden on LEA and SEA leaders;
• ensure the data they collect serve a clear purpose; and
• build stronger, more streamlined and transparent data sharing processes between state and local education leaders.

At WestEd, we’re continuing to support SEAs that want to rethink their approach to data collection—both as a way to improve efficiency and to better align data systems with their evolving policy priorities.

For more information about WestEd’s approach please contact Dr. Kelsey Krausen, director of WestEd’s Strategic Resource Allocation and Systems Planning team.