Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety Bullying topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clark County bill would let accused students request reassignment, tighten screening for bullying reports
Summary
Assembly Bill 48 would require administrators to screen bullying reports promptly and allow a student found responsible for bullying to request school reassignment; sponsors say the measure will reduce time spent on clearly unsubstantiated reports and protect victims.
Assembly Bill 48, introduced on behalf of the Clark County School District, would require school administrators to promptly screen reports of bullying, cyberbullying and race‑based discrimination to determine whether they merit a full investigation under Nevada Department of Education procedures. The bill also would allow a student found to have committed bullying or cyberbullying to request a change of school assignment as part of discipline procedures while preserving a victim’s ability to request reassignment.
Nathaniel Waugh, director of government relations for the Clark County School District, said the bill aims to refine screening and reassignment processes and align local practice with NDE procedures. He cited Clark County reporting figures to show the scale of the issue: as of January of the 2024–25 school year there had been about 5,769 reported bullying incidents in the district compared with roughly 10,636 in 2023–24 and 11,518 in 2022–23. Waugh told the committee administrators also recorded 607 cyberbullying incidents in 2024–25 as of January.
Jeff Horn, executive director of the Clark County Association of School Administrators and Professional Technical Employees, testified that principals spend substantial time investigating reports that later are determined to be unsubstantiated. Horn said roughly 40% of past bullying investigations were ultimately found unsubstantiated and gave examples of low‑severity peer conflicts that nonetheless consumed administrator time. "This lack of clarity drains valuable time and resources and should be directed toward instructional coaching, school climate and student well‑being," Horn said.
The bill would preserve a victim’s right to request reassignment and add a provision that, if both victim and perpetrator request transfers, they not be assigned to the same school. Waugh and Horn described the measure as giving administrators an additional tool to discuss reassignment with families of a student who has been found responsible for bullying.
Student and education‑sector witnesses offered support. Lily Trotter and Clover McClain, members of a charter school's student legislative team, said students should have clear definitions and be able to choose whether to be reassigned. The Nevada Association of School Superintendents, the Nevada Association of School Boards and members of school leadership called the bill a practical clarification to existing practice. Multiple Clark County assistant principals and elementary principals described at‑scale workloads and said a clear screening step would allow restorative practices and preserve time for instructional leadership.
Committee members asked how reassigned students would get to their new schools and whether foster or McKinney‑Vento students would be treated differently. Waugh said current practice does not provide district transportation for change‑of‑school assignments; transportation remains the responsibility of families under existing procedures. On foster or homeless students, sponsors said their consultations with caretakers and administrators must account for student‑specific circumstances.
No opposition witnesses appeared; the committee closed the hearing after supporters’ testimony and questions.
