83rd Legislative Session: Wins, Missed Opportunities and a Long Road Ahead

With more than a week removed from the Governor’s veto deadline, we take a look back at the good, the bad, and the mostly inconsequential K-12 education legacy of the 83rd Legislative Session. While some efforts were transformative, the session mostly fell short of expectations due to compromises on major issues and the Governor’s eagerness to veto even innocuous and common-sense bills. 

Though impossible to cover everything here, the following represents some highlights and lowlights significant to our organization, Nevada students, and our community.

A Big Win for Small School Districts and Students

After decades of enduring unsafe and outdated school facilities—that included mold and asbestos, inadequate heating and cooling, and insufficient technology infrastructure—the students of White Pine County School District are finally set to receive a new K-8 school building. It will replace two century-old school buildings in the small, rural community.

AB 224, championed by Assemblymember Erica Mosca and approved by the Governor on June 9th, emerged as a major highlight of the 83rd Legislative Session. This important legislation enables the State Treasurer’s Office to issue bonds specifically for school construction in small districts with deteriorating infrastructure who have reached a cap in their ability to raise local revenue. It is a bill rooted in equity, with the sole aim of doing what’s right for Nevada’s students. 

For the past several legislative sessions, Carson City largely ignored the needs of the White Pine County School District. As part of our mission to stand up for all Nevada students throughout the state, Educate Nevada Now joined the movement to advocate for these students. They deserve a school that adequately serves their learning needs. 

We are deeply grateful for the vision and leadership of the bill sponsor, Assemblymember Erica Mosca, who devised a creative solution to support all students, not just those from her own district in Southern Nevada. We also appreciate the critical support of Assembly Ways and Means Chair Daniele Monroe-Moreno, whose leadership was essential to this effort, along with the bipartisan group of cosponsors who helped advance AB 224. Lastly, none of this would have been possible without the steadfast, multi-decade effort and tireless perseverance of White Pine County School District leaders.

SB 460: A Mixed Outcome

While SB 460 held great potential, key provisions of the bill were modified as part of a compromise to align with the Governor’s legislative agenda and other special interests.

Arbitrary “At-Risk” Definition Re-Evaluated, But Still Falling Short:

SB 460 made some progress in addressing the flawed definition of “at-risk” that was enshrined in statute last session. But late changes (and a dubious legal opinion) stalled more meaningful improvements this session. Throughout several hearings, multiple lawmakers acknowledged deep flaws with the state’s definition of “at-risk,” a definition used to determine weighted funding for vulnerable students. ENN, school and district leaders, advocates, members of the Commission on School Funding, and the State Board of Education have all expressed concerns with students being left behind under the current definition. Nevada’s controversial at-risk model has even drawn national attention. 

SB 460, as amended, requires the Commission on School Funding to take another look at the method and determine if additional students should be served, but it failed to make real change by removing the unfair and arbitrary definition of “at-risk” from statute. This was a critical missed opportunity to put the state on the right path moving forward. 

To make matters worse, the state reduced funding for Nevada’s most vulnerable students by about $76 million over the biennium.

Accountability for Public Schools; Not So Much for Private School Vouchers:

SB 460 enacted numerous new accountability, transparency, and arguably punitive measures for public schools, but fell short on enacting much-needed reforms for private schools that utilize public funds. The bill included some accountability improvements for the Opportunity Scholarship voucher scheme, but provisions to enact more meaningful oversight were removed. SB 460 includes improved reporting around students that leave the program, as well as consequences for schools that fail to report. With 75% of students unaccounted for in current voucher reporting, this may shed some light on how students fare when they participate in the program.

However, voucher recipient academic outcomes have been shrouded in mystery, and national special interest groups have fought hard to keep it that way. Unfortunately, a late amendment pushed by pro-voucher groups watered down a key transparency measure that would have required voucher recipients take the same standardized assessments as their public school peers. This would have allowed the state to finally evaluate the academic success of students and offered some parity with public school accountability. 

Under a last-minute amendment, private schools can continue to choose their preferred exam, which currently includes 21 different approved exams. Despite the use of millions in taxpayer dollars, there will, for now, continue to be no meaningful way to track student success. The bill also requires reporting on grades, but again, without any uniform standards, this will also fail to offer meaningful accountability. This push by the pro-voucher groups against transparency and accountability was not surprising given that long-term national studies show voucher private school students actually end up performing worse than their public school counterparts. 

Shady Practices of the Opportunity Scholarship Voucher Program Go Unaddressed:

Voucher proponents also included language that wholly failed to address the shady practices of the state’s largest voucher scholarship organization, AAA Scholarship Foundation. These practices have included flying in from out-of-state to be “first-in-line” to collect all available tax credit funds, hoarding taxpayer funds rather than serving students, and denying students using other scholarship organizations the ability to continue attending their chosen schools. After last session, several families came forward when their vouchers were unexpectedly discontinued - all due to AAA taking all the available funds despite having $13 million in so-called “reserve” funds sitting in their bank account.

AB 441, vetoed by the Governor, would have required the state to issue taxpayer credits in an order that prioritized students already in the program, followed by their siblings, then any additional students. The bill further required the scholarship organizations use their funds within two years.

Unfortunately, the language in SB 460 only requires the scholarship organization grant vouchers in that order of priority but still maintains the “first-in-line” distribution method from the state. This means AAA can take all available funds and leave families in the dust again. Further, the bill gives organizations five years to expend funds, which means AAA can continue to earn interest on taxpayer funds sitting in their bank account, rather than serving students. It should be noted that Florida-based AAA Scholarship Foundation and its partners have been and continue to be close associates of the Governor.

Education Resource Audit Removed:

During the session, one lawmaker asked a simple question of the Nevada Department of Education, “What resources are actually being deployed in schools with at-risk funding?” The answer was, “We are not tracking that.”  Unfortunately, this is emblematic of the conversation around K-12 education - a conversation that has centered around money, outcomes, and accountability, while ignoring the vital point where the rubber meets the road: What resources and services are actually reaching the student?

The original version of SB 460 included a crucial provision directing the Commission on School Funding to analyze the relationship between school funding, best practices, and the allocation of classroom resources and services. This would have provided valuable insight into whether schools are delivering best-practice levels of resources with education investments, and if not, the challenges preventing them from doing so. 

These kinds of evaluations have been transformative in other states and created meaningful dialogue between lawmakers, state leaders, administrators and educators. And unlike the numerous punitive accountability measures in SB 460, this would have fostered collaboration and support. Unfortunately, this provision was removed during the final hearing, leaving a significant gap in our ability to assess how educational investments are impacting the classroom.

Learn more about one non-profit engaging in this work here.

Voting Rights for All Clark County School District Trustees:

ENN supported efforts to provide more equity in the duties and responsibilities of all Clark County School District’s Board of Trustees, regardless of whether they are elected or appointed. Appointed trustees have offered incredible insight and stability to CCSD but unfortunately were not able to fully participate by voting or performing other duties. SB 460 corrected this issue, and we look forward to seeing how this will impact the district.

There are many more aspects of SB 460 not covered here. Click here to read the full bill.

K-12 Funding

This session was a sharp departure from the previous one, which had resulted in more serious investments in education. This year’s budget reflects a paltry $2 increase in per-pupil funding in the first year and $72 in the second of the biennium for the state’s education funding formula, the Pupil-Centered Funding Plan. SB 500 allocated $9,416 per pupil in FY 26 school year and $9,486 in FY 27. Base per-pupil funding accounts for the majority of operational school expenses, so failing to account for rising costs effectively amounts to a reduction in funds and resources for Nevada students. 

Accounting for inflation, this is roughly a 5% decrease in funding. Rising PERS (employee retirement) contributions and the cost of educator salary adjustments will also impact school budgets throughout the state. Without meaningful funding increases, school districts will face painful budget cuts, larger class sizes (which are already the highest in the nation), reduced resources, and potential staff reductions.

Funding for students with unique needs saw winners and losers. Special education funding increased by about $20 million over the biennium, and English learner funding increased by about $31 million. However, at-risk funding was reduced by about $76 million compared to last biennium's approved budget. 

What appears on its face to be an increase from the previous session in total per-pupil funding, which includes other funding sources such as weighted funding for English learners, at-risk, and special education students, transportation, food service, and other education programs, upon closer inspection also fails to move the state closer to adequate funding. The majority of any perceived increase comes from simply maintaining teacher raises from last session. Some smaller allocations also supported teacher incentives for certain schools, charter school teacher raises and transportation, among other targeted funding.

In the end, schools will likely be covering for shortfalls rather than seeing growth.

Overall, despite being several years into the Commission on School Funding’s recommended ten-year plan to reach national-average funding levels, Nevada still finds itself more than $3,000 below the national average. 

Why are we back here again?

Nevada uses a “revenue-based” funding model, meaning when times are good (such as during the 2023 session) funding to education increases. This session, we got a glimpse into what school funding looks like when times are not so good. Unfortunately, lawmakers again ignored the many revenue recommendations of the Commission on School Funding.

Lawmakers did draw on reserves from the Education Stabilization Account to avoid even greater reductions in funding, but in the end, schools will feel the pain of these funding shortfalls. All the while, they will be expected to meet even more stringent goals and benchmarks.

There has been a lot of talk about “seeing results” with the additional investments from only two-years ago, but once again, schools will see resources dwindle before they could have a chance to make an impact. 

Looking Ahead

Unfortunately, this session was at best, inconsequential for K–12 education, and at worst, a step in the wrong direction. While legislative leaders and the Governor were presented opportunities for significant reform, many promising initiatives were either diluted or stripped out entirely during the legislative process.

Until there is a collective and sustained commitment to meaningfully invest in the future of Nevada’s children, Nevada will remain stuck in a cycle of inconsistent funding, superficial accountability, and inequitable policies that fail to address the needs of our most vulnerable students.

To see the results of other bills ENN was following, check out our bill tracker here.