State Public Charter School Authority tells Assembly panel it oversees 44 charter holders, highlights student outcomes and equity gaps

The State Public Charter School Authority told Nevada’s Assembly Committee on Education on Tuesday that it now authorizes 44 charter holders operating 80 campuses statewide and serves as the third-largest local education agency in Nevada.

Melissa Mackendon, executive director of the SPCSA, told the committee the authority’s statutory purposes under NRS 388.15 are to authorize high-quality charter schools, provide oversight and serve as a model for sponsoring charter schools. She said the SPCSA acts as both an authorizer and a local education agency (LEA), with responsibilities that include ensuring free appropriate public education (FAPE), administering federal grants and conducting academic, financial and organizational oversight of its portfolio.

The overview was meant to give members context for the authority’s role and recent trends. "As the LEA, we receive an estimated $48,700,000 in grant funding and about $15,000,000 of remaining emergency funds this fiscal year," Mackendon said. She described accountability tools the SPCSA uses: the Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF), an academic performance framework specific to charter schools, a financial performance framework and organizational reviews. She noted that state law provides for automatic termination of charter contracts if a school receives a one-star rating three times in any five-year period.

Why this matters: the SPCSA is responsible for oversight of a rapidly growing sector that now enrolls more than 60,000 students statewide. The authority’s decisions affect funding flows, special-education services and access to new school options in both urban and rural communities.

Mackendon presented data the SPCSA emphasized as strengths: 73 percent of schools in its portfolio are meeting or exceeding NSPF standards and 52 percent are exceeding standards; the SPCSA’s graduation rate for its high schools is 83.3 percent; and 54.7 percent of charter high school graduates earned a college- and career-ready or advanced diploma in 2023–24. She also said 54 percent of SPCSA schools qualify for Title I and that, on subgroup measures (students with disabilities, English learners and students qualifying for free and reduced-price lunch), performance in many categories exceeded the statewide averages as measured by Smarter Balanced (SBAC) and the ACT.

Committee members pressed the authority on equity and access. Assemblywoman Erica Mosca asked about eligibility requirements for the SPCSA board and the authority’s use of "strategic authorizing." Mackendon explained that since a 2019 statutory change the authority conducts demographic and academic needs assessments: applicants must demonstrate they will address an identified need—such as serving English-language learners, students with disabilities, or ZIP codes with many 1- or 2-star schools—in order to be authorized. She said that requirement has shifted approvals toward schools that target underserved populations.

Vice Chair Ruben Da Silva and others asked about remaining gaps. Mackendon said the largest remaining discrepancy is the share of students qualifying for free and reduced-price lunch (FRL). She noted that statewide data have been affected by community eligibility programs, which allow whole districts to report higher FRL rates, complicating direct comparisons. Mackendon highlighted transportation funding approved in the last legislative session as a key lever for improving access, saying transportation availability can change whether families can exercise school choice.

Other questions concerned the LEA role and expansion of municipal authorizers. Mackendon said the statute currently makes the SPCSA the LEA for the charter schools it sponsors and, as the law is written today, the SPCSA would be the LEA for charter schools authorized by newly authorized local governments; she and counsel said they are seeking statutory changes so local authorizers could serve as LEAs for schools they authorize.

Public commenters and stakeholder representatives raised concerns about special-education services and equity. Kalen Evans, president of the Washoe Education Association, told the committee that some charter schools return students with behavioral and special-education needs to their zoned schools because they are unable to provide required services. Alexander Marks of the Nevada State Education Association urged greater oversight and parity in requirements (for example, teacher licensure) between district and charter schools. By contrast, Ignacio Prado, founder and principal of Futura Academy and vice chair of the statewide charter association, said charters are serving increasing numbers of students with disabilities and urged legislators to visit charter campuses to see examples of services.

The SPCSA presentation materials and an appendix with school-level NSPF ratings, subgroup proficiency trends and a list of new and scheduled-open schools were provided to committee members; senior staff said those materials are posted on the committee’s page on NELIS. Mackendon and staff offered to follow up with legislators on specific data requests, including growth metrics for charter students and comparisons requested by Assemblymember Max Ortlicker.

Looking ahead: Mackendon said the SPCSA plans to propose statutory changes if local governments pursue authorizing authority, and staff indicated they would provide the committee with comparisons of statutory requirements across authorizers.