Parents and providers back bill to allow ABA therapists into Nevada classrooms; districts voice concerns

Sen. James Ohranchal (Senate District 21) introduced Senate Bill 174 to the Senate Committee on Education as a measure to permit medically necessary applied behavior analysis (ABA) services provided by outside contractors to occur in public school settings for students with an individualized education program (IEP), provided the services are funded by Medicaid or private insurance and implemented under district policies or memoranda of understanding.

"He can't talk. And he needs help trying to stay on task, to follow directions, regulate his emotions when he gets frustrated," testified Michael Lee, a Las Vegas parent and attorney who described his 6‑year‑old son Kato and the family's efforts to secure services. Lee framed SB174 as a collaboration tool: "This bill is not about replacing educators or undermining their hard work. It's about providing additional support to help teachers do what teachers do best, teach and inspire."

Sponsor and parent presenters said bringing credentialed ABA staff or registered behavior technicians (RBTs) into classroom settings allows therapy‑gained skills to be generalized to school routines and gives teachers help managing behaviors that otherwise can disrupt learning or lead to the use of physical restraints. Several parents and behavior‑analysis providers described cases where children had to be pulled from regular classes, families paid for services outside school hours, or districts would not permit meaningful in‑school collaboration.

Proponents offered a set of implementation features: services would be paid for by third‑party insurers (Medicaid or commercial insurance), providers would operate under an MOU with the district that defines roles and confidentiality protections, providers would hold licensure or credentials and carry professional liability insurance, and the school district would not bear direct cost for the ABA services.

Several districts and education organizations testified in opposition or neutral and raised legal, operational, and equity concerns. Brad Keating, speaking for Clark County School District, said the district does not support the bill as drafted, citing questions of compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), liability and fingerprinting requirements, and the potential for uneven implementation across districts. The Nevada Association of School Superintendents and the Nevada Association of School Boards said they were neutral or opposed pending further amendment discussions.

Critics argued the bill, as written, could privilege students whose families have private insurance while leaving Medicaid‑only students and others behind; others warned of scheduling, oversight and training issues if multiple outside providers were present in schools. Testifying clinicians urged careful role definitions: a registered behavior technician completes 40 hours of training and works under BCBA supervision, and districts and lawmakers should explicitly align scope of practice and oversight.

Several smaller and rural Nevada counties were cited as already allowing outside ABA personnel to work in classrooms (county list provided by presenters included Churchill, Elko, Lander, Lincoln, Lyon, Pershing, Storey and Washoe), while Clark County currently prohibits outside ABA personnel in classrooms, proponents said. Presenters and some teachers argued that MOU models and clear district policy can address safeguards, background checks, student privacy (FERPA/HIPAA) and roles on IEP teams.

The committee heard extensive personal testimony from parents and teachers supporting classroom access to ABA and from district and statewide education organizations urging revisions to the bill. Senator Ohranchal said he will continue discussions with stakeholders and indicated some provisions, including a reporting requirement, could be removed to address fiscal‑note and administrative concerns. The committee did not take a final vote at the hearing.

Why it matters: SB174 would change how medically necessary behavioral therapy can be delivered to students with autism in Nevada public schools, potentially increasing therapy hours, changing IEP team practices, and raising questions about equity, state and federal funding interactions, and district operations.

Quotations above are drawn from testimony by sponsor Senator James Ohranchal, parents, providers (Michael Lee, Corey Ward, Eric Lovaas), and district representatives (Brad Keating).