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

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.