Nevada committee hears bill to let students apply to public schools outside their attendance zones

Assemblymember Selena Torres Fawcett, sponsor of Assembly Bill 533, told the Assembly Committee on Education that the bill would establish an open‑enrollment policy allowing pupils to apply to public schools outside their designated attendance zones when capacity exists. "Open enrollment is a significant opportunity to level the playing field for thousands of students throughout Nevada," Torres Fawcett said, citing maps and data she said show persistent disparities driven by historic zoning and redlining.

The bill would let families apply for other schools in a process similar to charter or magnet lotteries. Pupils who live in the school's attendance area would keep priority; lotteries would fill remaining seats. The bill also requires districts to set capacity limits by grade level, publish vacancies monthly, report annually on applications and decisions, and make application materials available in multiple languages. Section 3 as presented would allow parents to appeal denials first to the district superintendent, then to the state superintendent of public instruction, whose decision would be final.

Supporters who testified said the policy would expand choices for families and improve outcomes. Hallie Faulkner of the national organization Yes Every Kid described open enrollment policies in states such as Arizona and Colorado and said strong programs are universal, transparent, tuition‑free and prohibit address discrimination. Students who spoke to the committee described personal experiences with zone‑based assignment that interrupted programs or required lengthy commutes; sophomore Alyssa Martinez said a denied zone variance threatened her senior year programming and that her family had to relocate so she could stay at her high school.

Local organizations including the Children’s Advocacy Alliance, Opportunity 180, the Vegas Chamber and other education and civic groups testified in support, describing open enrollment as an equity and parental‑choice measure. Several witnesses and committee members asked how transportation would be handled: Torres Fawcett said the bill would not require districts to provide transportation immediately but included a study and reporting requirement on transportation capacity and options so future policy decisions could be data‑driven.

District officials expressed concerns. Brandon Keating, representing Clark County School District, said CCSD already offers a change of school assignment (COSA) process for similar purposes and opposed portions of the bill that he said would require using behavioral or disciplinary history in applications; CCSD said its current COSA is a blind application process and that many seats in the district are already available. Washoe County School District representatives and the Nevada State Education Association voiced requests to tighten the definition of capacity so it reflects reasonable classroom teaching capacity rather than full building or fire‑code numbers.

Torres Fawcett and members of the committee discussed amendments to clarify capacity calculations (favoring classroom capacity), ensure special education transportation remains protected under IDEA, and to allow districts time to implement an appeals structure. Committee members asked whether approved transfers would be permanent; staff and proponents said approved transfers would generally be treated as resident the following year so students could remain.

The hearing produced substantial discussion but no committee vote during the session. Torres Fawcett said she is open to changes on capacity language and appeals and that she would work with districts to refine implementation details.

The bill drew extensive public testimony — both from parents describing challenges navigating change‑of‑school and zone variance processes and from district officials urging collaboration — and the committee left the matter open for further amendment and work session consideration.