Nevada lawmakers hear debate on bill to make class size a mandatory bargaining topic

Assemblymember Selena LaRue Hatch introduced Assembly Bill 155 to the Nevada Senate Committee on Government Affairs, saying the bill would add class size and educator caseload to the list of mandatory subjects in collective bargaining between school districts and employee organizations.

LaRue Hatch, who represents Assembly District 25 and said she has been a teacher for more than a decade, told the committee Nevada schools have among the largest class sizes in the nation and that counselor, social worker and specialist-to-student ratios are far above national recommendations. "The recommended ratio from the American School Counselor Association is 1 counselor for every 250 students. In Nevada schools, the average is 1 to 1,200 students," she said. She said the bill is intended to create a formal venue to negotiate class size and caseloads rather than rely solely on the Legislature to attach funding conditions.

The Nevada State Education Association, represented by Dawn Etchberry, testified in strong support, saying smaller class sizes improve student outcomes and teacher retention and that AB155 would ensure class size is discussed at the bargaining table. Kayla Maese of the ACLU of Nevada and Kent Irvin of the Nevada Faculty Alliance also testified in favor, urging negotiators be able to address workload and staffing through bargaining.

Opponents told the committee the change could have unintended budgetary and operational consequences. Anahit Bakhshatsyan of Nevada Policy argued the topic is complex and best handled through data-driven legislative and budget processes rather than broadening mandatory bargaining subjects. Susan Keema, representing Nevada Association of School Superintendents, said current statute and the State Board of Education already provide for class-size standards and waiver processes, and warned that adding class size to bargaining could create conflicts with NRS 388.72 and make it harder for districts to manage waivers and staffing when they are unable to meet targets. Nick Schneider of the Las Vegas Chamber and Tom Clark of the Nevada Association of School Boards also opposed the bill, citing facility and staffing constraints.

LaRue Hatch told the committee she did not expect the bill to solve class size on its own but described it as a first step to give unions and districts a clearer venue to trade off pay, staffing and supports. She emphasized contracts already include clauses covering unexpected enrollment or funding changes and argued that bargaining offers a practical channel for redistributing education dollars to classrooms.

The committee hearing included public- and creature testimony but ended without a formal committee vote recorded in the transcript. Committee members asked several clarifying questions about whether the bill would create new funding obligations and how it would interact with existing statutory waiver processes.

Community members and organizations remain split: educator and civil-rights organizations framed AB155 as a tool to address student and staff needs; superintendents and local education and business groups warned the bill could shift complex budgeting decisions into contract negotiations and urged continued focus on pipeline and funding solutions.