Bill would tighten SPCSA board rules, make sponsors the LEA and ease renewal paperwork for charter schools

Assembly Bill 39 would change who is eligible to vote on the State Public Charter School Authority (SPCSA) board, require each charter sponsor to serve as the local education agency for the schools it authorizes and remove redundant paperwork in the charter renewal process.

Melissa Mackinnon, executive director of the Nevada State Public Charter School Authority, presented the bill to the Senate Committee on Education and said the measure has three main goals: clarifying membership and age requirements for voting board members, making sponsors the LEA for schools they authorize, and eliminating overlapping renewal requirements. "The SPCSA believes these changes will ensure that Nevada's charter school landscape is best positioned to be as effective and as efficient as possible," Mackinnon said.

The bill would set a minimum age of 21 for voting members of the SPCSA board and add conflict-of-interest language to bar individuals with a financial interest in any Nevada charter school from serving on the board, even if their employer is not the school's sponsor. Mackinnon said those changes aim to avoid situations such as an executive of an educational management organization serving on the SPCSA board while their organization contracts with a charter school.

AB 39 would also adjust eligibility for teachers and administrators to serve on the SPCSA board. Under the proposed change, a teacher or administrator would be eligible only if the school that employs them is in "good standing" on the SPCSA performance framework — defined in the presentation as currently rated three stars or above and without financial or organizational notices of concern or breach. "To expand the pool of eligible teachers and administrators and provide these highly qualified individuals an opportunity to serve, we are proposing to update the statute to require that the school a teacher or an administrator currently works for must be in good standing on the SPCSA performance framework," Mackinnon said.

On the LEA question, Mackinnon told the committee that Nevada is one of three states in which an authorizer currently serves as the LEA; Clark County School District, Washoe County School District, Carson City School District and the SPCSA all serve as LEAs for the schools they authorize. She said a 2023 change mistakenly specified that the SPCSA would be the LEA for schools authorized by municipalities, which the bill would correct by clarifying that the charter school sponsor remains the LEA for the schools it sponsors.

On renewal paperwork, AB 39 would remove a statutory requirement that schools resubmit performance data the sponsor has already provided for renewal applications. Instead, renewal applicants could submit other narrative and supporting data while sponsors retain access to the school's performance data and the performance framework remains the primary renewal factor.

Local government and education groups testified in support. Wesley Harper, director of government affairs for the City of North Las Vegas, said the city supports the measure but noted implementation will require recalculation of responsibilities: "We are in support. ... It does present recalculation for us, though. But we see this as an opportunity and a challenge, and we're ready to walk forward," Harper said. Gil Lopez of the Charter School Association of Nevada praised the SPCSA as a national model and voiced the association's support. Anthony Curry of Opportunity180, a nonprofit, said the bill would align charter schools with district schools on LEA responsibilities and help ensure continuity in compliance oversight.

No vote was taken during the committee hearing. The chair closed the AB 39 hearing after testimony and comment. The committee did not record any motion or formal action on AB 39 during this meeting.

Implementation details and statutory cross-references were discussed in committee; committee staff or sponsors may be asked for follow-up materials on how the proposed changes would be implemented in practice.