[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6558203,"mediaKeyId","3275223-6db63c7843dd7d7beac07934648675bf","parentId",3275223,"title","Committee considers AB426 to change school organizational team rules for large districts; State Board and principals raise concerns","audioSeconds",1723,"startMs",3871000,"endMs",5594000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3275223-6db63c7843dd7d7beac07934648675bf&start=3871&end=5594","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3275223-6db63c7843dd7d7beac07934648675bf/thumbnail_3871000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6558203/Nevada/Committee-considers-AB426-to-change-school-organizational-team-rules-for-large-districts-State-Board-and-principals-raise-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558203-3de801671a3534db207fd4f59c88e99f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770499038&Signature=MnKmBQqBBv756~3rk0Vq5yeEvluRMMsQU94wQtGmYpHD4TJb1OPnCZ9yon~wdKl9TKYIQ5CRP5c9U~7-s53wSFQMTmI7APElgCJXP6P3AJUqnUcbRqhn5N6arBLfCsdaB1Hss6rv8mKKhC7uOjUv7AdHnCvU6tBErkLN1bV6rAiroYWYG4VoFvis37ekWiflZQQtObu3C8zwGYJWw3yTestDzSRsndc098H9AcGxR3-g3bLAwUcVaIxEwB78UdNnG8KsvMrjgWTv2IJ39Yd0MUQATiD03MjE9HCQfacITzooN95ih7sGWqYILAmQnv8ASLFdXpTag9UjznQcD4xqaw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada State Legislature","date","2025-05-12T22:28:24.083Z","article","The Senate Committee on Education took testimony on Assembly Bill 426, which would revise provisions governing school organizational teams (SOTs) and site‑based decision making in large school districts — primarily directed at Clark County School District under the bill’s enrollment threshold. Assemblymember Venise Karis (sponsor) and Rebecca Dirks Garcia, who testified as a primary proponent, said the measure aims to increase transparency in budgets, standardize how plans of operation are posted, and broaden family and community engagement in SOT processes.

Key provisions described by proponents include requiring schools to post the plan of operation on the district and school websites for not less than five years; new notice requirements for SOT meetings and budget adjustments; thresholds for SOT approval of certain budget changes ($80,000 for elementary/middle schools and $125,000 for high schools in the first reprint); and adding a role for SOTs in recommending qualifications for superintendent candidates and participating in principal selection interviews. The first reprint also added language to allow principals to serve on an SOT as a parent if the principal’s child attends a different school.

Support and opposition

Supporters including the Retail Association of Nevada, the Las Vegas Chamber and parent groups told the committee the bill would increase public access to information and rebuild trust around school budgets. Joe Hill of the Retail Association said the measure “represents the next step in assuring the public that education dollars are being spent wisely.” Parents and community organizers who testified by phone said the bill would address inconsistent posting and inconsistent outreach across schools.

Several education organizations and school leaders opposed AB 426 or urged the committee to allow the State Board of Education’s regulatory process under the 2017 reorganization law (AB469) to address outstanding concerns. Dawn Echeverry of the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) said SOT members are all important and cautioned against elevating some seats over others in principal interviews. Dr. Katie Dockweiler, president of the State Board of Education, said the legislature’s 2017 process for reorganization and the State Board’s AB469 subcommittee were intended to address these types of issues by regulation and said, “the process the legislature established in 2017 was bypassed.”

Principals and district staff who spoke in opposition said the bill would add administrative burdens and risk micromanaging principals. Jeff Horn, executive director of the Clark County Association of School Administrators, said the association opposed “the additional constraints and requirements proposed in this bill” and warned the changes would erode principal autonomy. A number of rural parents and SOT members said they opposed the bill because it could reduce local flexibility in small or remote communities.

Sponsor response and next steps

Assemblymember Karis acknowledged late amendments requested by district representatives and said staff had incorporated many requested changes; she said the bill was not intended as an attack on principals and described the measure as an effort to increase transparency. Committee members asked about the bill’s origin and whether the State Board’s reorg subcommittee or district‑level processes had been fully engaged before the measure was drafted; proponents said they had engaged stakeholders but that some concerns arrived late in the process. No committee vote was taken at the hearing; the bill remains eligible for further action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","5/12/2025 - Senate Committee on Education","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Committee on Education considered Assembly Bill 426, which would change school organizational team procedures, posting and budget‑adjustment rules for large school districts (set at more than 100,000 pupils by the bill’s language).","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6558209,"Senate committee hears bill to set standards for \"high impact tutoring\"",1670,1900000,3570000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3275223-6db63c7843dd7d7beac07934648675bf&start=1900&end=3570","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3275223-6db63c7843dd7d7beac07934648675bf/thumbnail_1900000.jpg","/articles/6558209/Nevada/Senate-committee-hears-bill-to-set-standards-for-high-impact-tutoring","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558209-cb4086a541624690b8ee82455f46123e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770499038&Signature=GVywt770lEu4aiawqdsU4PUaUFaQnvaSB6lbPbOs8xHd~OA~UB89WRXpi6QhJx4N10oBEp~u2vwp-gWza72r2ksdbSG3wy~swop0xhfS7SIoYWiFNoF9qAyjyzz~81fc~bFdoTCxx8Ytcvr7erRqFP06xqxd~iFlL6QBgxuuUJCA-adqS6SfO-HPG7oFzT3vnA9bUg7relDqWyKhtKLtEdlicJM6eM3~sAmq2R3Scr3n6IRKuOlG3NR34MyE5ExZKGl4oaVIdF4uTQeRvgNgQGMj11a5vd71jEozID7Zt4IHpYJtVRFWPf3YoUwrEJCO3wlO8ppwxxeldpm12GAklQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nevada Senate Committee on Education opened a hearing on Assembly Bill 383, which would establish standards for school‑run “high impact tutoring” programs that districts or charter schools contract to provide. Assemblywoman Alexis Hansen, sponsor of the bill, told the committee the measure is intended to help districts vet tutoring vendors and to promote practices she said research has shown reliably improve student learning.

Hansen said the bill is permissive — it does not require districts to adopt a vendor — but would authorize the State Board of Education to adopt regulations and set criteria for vendors that call themselves high impact tutoring programs. Her co‑presenter, Spencer Flanders of TriStrategies, described the model and the bill’s main elements: regular sessions (at least three 30‑minute sessions per week in the draft), small groups with the same tutor (the draft caps groups at four students), trained and qualified tutors, use of research‑based instructional materials aligned to the curriculum, explicit rules for selecting students for tutoring, regular progress checks and family reporting, and protections for student data.

Supporters told the committee the approach targets pandemic‑era learning loss. Nicole Flangas of the Nevada Association of School Boards said the bill provides “permissive language to employ and safeguards for when school districts do employ high impact tutoring via a vendor.” Kenya McCampbell, a doctoral student at UNLV, testified that high impact tutoring (HIT) is “targeted, small group instruction that meets at least 3 times a week” and cited out‑of‑state programs she described as producing measurable gains in math and attendance. Nevada Policy offered examples from other states and urged adoption of the measure’s vetting provisions.

Sponsor and staff discussion

Hansen and committee members spent the hearing period answering questions about why the standards were placed in statute rather than left to regulation. Senator Cindy Titus asked whether the State Board of Education could adopt the standards now without legislation; Hansen said the board could adopt regulations but argued that codifying the standards in statute provides districts a clear, legislatively confirmed checklist to use when spending public funds on vendors. Senator Angie Taylor and others expressed concern that specific numerical details (for example, the 3 sessions per week or 4‑student group cap) may be better handled through regulation to retain flexibility as research evolves; Hansen said she was open to working on technical language.

No vote was taken at the hearing. The committee received multiple supportive public comments from education‑policy organizations and local advocates and no callers in opposition were registered during the hearing. The hearing record shows questions from senators about whether the bill applies to in‑school tutoring (Hansen answered that it is intended for in‑district, in‑school programs) and about tutor staffing ratios at different grade levels.

Next steps

The committee closed the hearing with no action recorded on AB 383 during this session; the bill will remain eligible for further committee action according to legislative scheduling. Supporters and the sponsor indicated willingness to refine statutory language in response to committee concerns about flexibility and the proper venue (statute v. regulation) for technical program details.","Sponsors presented Assembly Bill 383 to create statutory standards for high impact tutoring programs, outlining delivery, group size, tutor qualifications and data reporting; proponents said the model is research‑backed, while some senators raised questions about placing detailed program requirements in statute rather than regulation.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6558198,"Votes at a glance: three education bills advance from Senate Education Committee work session",391,1468000,1859000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3275223-6db63c7843dd7d7beac07934648675bf&start=1468&end=1859","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3275223-6db63c7843dd7d7beac07934648675bf/thumbnail_1468000.jpg","/articles/6558198/Nevada/Votes-at-a-glance-three-education-bills-advance-from-Senate-Education-Committee-work-session","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558198-b23d6557bd44ea8923f69a56742ebbcd/orig.mp4?Expires=1770499038&Signature=Gzywe42yghRuPH2weBZ1vYbNbf4LUz5p3F33i-hKsIAfvucXrsLi4uj9ndZ9j9D7rDm2Do~rWCpFI5Ka3omeGqSkHumQvmhHh4MDFEMQXtinHCWu1FC0tOsxhqM4tudLEk6ITwe4yy7FcY8bKAOPIffdpMlLWurwkNnbEkeyYw3ktZsOMB1LABnmCtUA4IKRbMy0WHcET7dBlPIq1nBX3GCXAE8fMwJboyJcjhx~cRFmi75nOSZt-1~kKIqi0I-c1S3AScvuYAepriN2IXQFIfVr2w3hOOzvkIbv83HQeYoeCettrn2XBWgLZMuhq6mUhkL3IjR0MUk2FAq6qYYBSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the start of the Senate Committee on Education meeting the panel conducted a work session and voted on three bills on its agenda. The committee moved all three measures forward with differing vote counts.

AB205 (author: Assemblymember Golding) — change written notice for certain instruction from a consent form to an opt‑out/refusal form

Summary: The bill revises the written notice a school district must provide parents or guardians for instruction in certain topics (described in the bill) by changing the default from a consent form to an opportunity to refuse participation. The committee policy analyst described the bill at the work session.

Action: Motion to do pass (mover: Vice Chair Dondero Loop; second: Senator Cruz Crawford). Recorded opposition in the hearing record included Senator Buck and Senator Titus. The clerk recorded a tally of 4 yeas and 3 nays; the committee made a do‑pass recommendation. The floor statement was assigned to Senator Cruz Crawford.

AB236 (author: Assemblymember To Silva) — appointment process for certain boards and councils

Summary: The bill revises appointment processes to require the governor select appointees from a list provided by specified employee organizations for certain school‑related boards/councils.

Action: Motion to do pass (mover: Vice Chair Dondero Loop; second: Senator Danante). The hearing record shows one opposed vote, Senator Titus; the committee recorded the bill as passing with a do‑pass recommendation. The floor statement was assigned to the vice chair.

AB454 (author: Assemblymember Nadine) — emergency response plans and CPR certification for school personnel

Summary: The bill would require emergency response plans addressing heart‑related emergencies at public and private high schools and clarify CPR/certification requirements for certain non‑pupil staff and coaches. The sponsor offered four proposed amendments in the work session (clarifying training scope, removing certain references to clubs, broadening the definition of health care provider for consultation, and including charter schools in a specific section).

Action: Motion to amend and do pass (mover: Vice Chair Dondero Loop; second: Senator Cruz Crawford). The committee recorded the motion carried unanimously and assigned the floor statement to Senator D’Agnante.

Record and next steps

The committee’s actions on these three bills were taken during the meeting’s work session portion and were recorded in the committee minutes. Committee members asked procedural and policy questions during discussion; no roll‑call breakdown by each member for every bill was read into the transcript beyond the named oppositions noted above. Each bill will proceed to the next step in the legislative process per the committee’s do‑pass recommendations.","During a work session the Senate Education Committee moved three bills — AB205, AB236 and AB454 — to do‑pass recommendations with recorded tallies. The bills cover notice for instruction in sex education (AB205), appointment processes for board appointees (AB236) and emergency response/CPR requirements for school personnel (AB454).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee considers AB426 to change school organizational team rules for large districts; State Board and principals raise concerns

Senate committee hears bill to set standards for "high impact tutoring"

Votes at a glance: three education bills advance from Senate Education Committee work session