Bill would pause some charter closures and convene review of Nevada school accountability framework

Assemblymember Torres Fawcett presented Assembly Bill 495 to the Senate Committee on Education, saying the measure would create a temporary review and limited pause in enforcement tied to the Nevada State Performance Framework (NSPF) and give some low‑rated public charter schools time to demonstrate measurable progress before sponsors are required to terminate contracts.

Why it matters: The NSPF assigns school ratings across several measures aligned to federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act requirements. Sponsors and many witnesses said the current framework can unfairly penalize small or high‑need schools because chronic absenteeism and low proficiency levels can dominate the rating even when a school demonstrates academic growth.

What the bill does: AB495 directs the Nevada Department of Education to convene an advisory group of stakeholders — including educators, parents, NDE representatives and others — to review the statewide accountability system and recommend revisions that align with federal requirements and with indicators that support postsecondary and career readiness. The bill’s first reprint creates a temporary allowance: under specified circumstances a sponsor (including the State Public Charter School Authority and local authorizers) would not be required to terminate a charter’s contract despite three low annual ratings if objective criteria show the school is within a narrow point range of the next rating and is demonstrating meaningful growth. Sponsors proposed an amendment to change references from percent to points and to make the pause expire Oct. 1, 2027.

Support and concerns: Dozens of charter leaders, principals and nonprofit advocates testified in support. Janelle Veith, principal of Quest Academy, and Andrea Morency, founder of the Honors Academy of Literature, described small enrollment sizes and student populations who enter far below grade level; they said the NSPF’s current point allocation amplifies volatility in small schools. Trevor Parrish of the Vegas Chamber and Gil Lopez of the Charter School Association of Nevada urged the committee to allow sponsors discretion to consider demonstrated growth so that students avoid abrupt school closures.

The Nevada State Education Association voiced reservations: Robert Munson said the association agreed the NSPF needs reexamination, particularly around growth and chronic absenteeism, but expressed concern that the bill as drafted did not fully solve accountability issues and that schools must still be held to high standards.

Technical details discussed: Witness Jimmy Lau, speaking for Imagine Schools, described the NSPF thresholds in practical terms: an index score of roughly 27 points (elementary/high school) or 29 points (middle school) is needed to move from a 1‑star to a 2‑star rating under current NSPF scoring (the NSPF uses a composite index). Torres Fawcett explained one working standard in the bill: a sponsor could elect not to terminate a school if it is within 5 points of the higher rating, with a separate allowance (within 10 points plus demonstration of at least 50 percent growth) to allow additional discretion; the sponsor said even if all eligible schools were retained under the policy, last year’s data indicated several schools would still face closure under other criteria.

The committee closed the hearing; sponsors said they are open to refining the advisory group membership and the review scope to reduce perceived NDE dominance of the process.

Ending: Supporters emphasized the bill is temporary and meant to inform a broader statutory and policy review of school accountability. The sponsor asked lawmakers to provide time for schools demonstrating progress to stabilize while the NSPF is reviewed.