Nevada lawmakers push through new education reform bill
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Nevada lawmakers are trying to push through a bill that aims to reform public education in the state.
Monday was the final day for bills to pass in the 2025 Nevada legislative session.
Republicans and Democrats combined two separate education bills, Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro, D-Clark County, and Republican Governor Joe Lombardo's bills which were absorbed into one piece of legislation.
Nevada Democrats unveil major education bill targeting CCSD, charter schools
The bill includes open enrollment; expanding pre-kindergarten education; making the Clark County School District's four non-voting appointed trustees into voting members; and allowing the state to take over underperforming schools.
At a hearing in the Assembly Education Committee on Monday, Interim Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Steve Canavero said the punitive parts of a new system to hold schools accountable would take effect in the 2029 school year.
'Does [the Nevada Department of Education] have the ability, the funding, the staff, and the resources to fully take over these schools on an indefinite basis?' Assem. Selena La Rue Hatch, D-Washoe County, said.
'This is the start of a build out [for the] long term. Our math would say somewhere around 2029/2030 would be when we would identify persistently underperforming schools,' Dr. Canavero responded.
The new bill would create the Public Education Oversight Board, which would support and intervene when schools, including charters, slide academically.
'The permissive interventions would be direct state takeover or working to replace key personnel at the school site,' Canavero said, in describing what the board could do.
According to the Nevada Department of Education, half of all public schools are one or two-star schools and half of third graders are also not at the level they need to be.
Yet not all lawmakers were sold on the idea of a new board, including Democratic Assem. Erica Mosca.
'I definitely have some concerns, and I've heard a lot of people have concerns around a small group having a lot of decision making in the state. Whether it's taking over a school, removing a superintendent, taking over a district,' Mosca, D-Clark County, said. She has previously worked at charter schools.
Lombardo said he is looking to remove excuses in schools when it comes to chronic underperformance.
'Remove that excuse': Gov. Lombardo's education bill aims at performance, accountability
'It's clear that there was an intention for there to be some decision making around accountability for our school districts,' Canavero said.
Tucked in the education reform was the amendment to make the non-voting, appointed CCSD trustees into voting members. That would not kick in until July of 2027.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Republicans warn Senate not to touch SALT deal
Moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states are warning senators that they will not give the 'big, beautiful bill' a final stamp of approval if they change their proposal for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap. The shot across the Capitol came shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters the upper chamber would likely tweak the SALT provision in the mammoth measure, one of several alterations. The House bill raises the SALT deduction cap to $40,000 — quadruple the $10,000 deduction cap in current law. A group of moderates in the House from New York, New Jersey and California has said they would not support the package unless it included substantial SALT relief. Those members are now warning that any changes to the provision could prevent the bill from passing the House once it is sent back from the Senate. 'If the Senate unwinds the House's $40K SALT deal, it's like digging up buried radioactive waste—reckless and sure to contaminate the whole One Big Beautiful Bill,' Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) wrote on X. 'Best to leave it alone.' He elaborated on his comments later, telling reporters he would encourage the Senate to keep their deal in place. 'The reason I've chosen that analogy is because the House took four months to get to where we could finally compromise, negotiate and settle on bill language as it relates to SALT and other interlocking and related provisions. So the Senate to disrupt that is to undo a lot of that painful work, to rip off some scabs, and to essentially restart the very painful process that we went through for four months,' he said. 'I would advise them to keep the bill intact. I respect the senators' prerogatives to exercise their constituents' priorities, but we worked really hard to get to the compromise bill that we got to, and it'd be a shame to have to restart.' Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), another member of the group, was more concise: 'Let's be clear — no SALT, no deal.' 'If the Senate changes the negotiated number of $40,000 — it will derail final passage of the bill,' Lawler wrote on X. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who was a key player in brokering a SALT deal in the House, said he spoke with members of the Caucus on Wednesday, shortly after Thune signaled changes to their provision, and plans to make their case to the Senate. 'I just talked to my SALT Caucus on the floor and I'm gonna go communicate to the Senate, again, it's a very delicate thing, we have to maintain the equilibrium point that we reached in the House,' Johnson told reporters. 'And it took almost a year to get to that point so I don't think we can toss that off.' Asked if there is wiggle room around the $40,000 deduction cap, the Speaker was coy: 'I'm about to find out; we'll see.' The SALT deduction cap was always expected to be a battle in the Senate. While a number of vulnerable Republicans in the House care deeply about SALT, Senate Republicans don't even have members from New York, New Jersey or California. The issue came up for Senate Republicans at a conference-wide meeting on Wednesday, where some were itching to lower the cap but wary of gumming things up for Johnson. 'Our goal isn't to create a problem for the House, but we also know the Senate will put its mark on the bill,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). One Senate Republican indicated that some senators favor forcing the House SALT backers into supporting a lower ceiling. But they believe the easiest path is for the upper chamber to swallow its pride and defer to Johnson. 'It may be easier to say than do,' the Senate GOP member said. 'It would just screw the whole bill.' This senator said even lowering the ceiling from $40,000 to $30,000 could be risky since it might lead some of the House Republicans to vote against the bill. But the senator also suggested the SALT Republicans in the House could be bluffing. 'Is that enough to get you, because otherwise you say, 'I'm going to vote against the bill and for a $4 trillion tax increase as a Republican,'' the member continued. 'That's original sin there.' While Thune is signaling that the chamber will likely change the SALT provision, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) — a former House member and key liaison between the two chambers — is saying the opposite. 'It was a hard fight over there,' Mullin said, pointing to its roughly $300 billion cost. 'It's a big number, but it was something they had to do to try to get the bill passed. We don't want to do something that would cause it not to pass.' 'The body here is going to work its will,' he continued. 'I would be a little [skeptical] about doing too much with SALT.' House Republicans in the SALT Caucus are warning they aren't bluffing. 'I wouldn't bet against a couple of salty Republicans, including a couple of salty New Yorkers,' LaLota said. 'I wouldn't bet against us.' Pressed on if the Senate should take the SALT Caucus' comments as a signal that the House will not pass a bill with a lower deduction cap, LaLota responded: 'That would be reasonable for them to consider that.' Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), another member of the SALT Caucus, expressed confidence. 'The leadership is working and talking to the Senate on a regular basis and I'm very confident much of what we passed in the House will still be there,' Kim said. 'So I'm not gonna comment on how I'll be voting for it till I see the package that comes back to us.' 'We're already working to ensure that everything that we pass in the House is still kept in the Senate version,' she added. Asked if there was any wiggle room on their SALT deal, LaLota said: 'I'm eager to see what they actually come back with. I don't know why anybody would logically want to disrupt something that was the result of a lot of hard work, pain, heartache and ultimately compromise,' he added. When a reporter pointed out that his comments were not a firm no, he responded: 'I would love them to increase it. That would be a great idea if they came to us with $50,000, I would endorse it right away.'


Hamilton Spectator
11 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Judge largely denies request to block restrictions on getting measures on Florida's ballot
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge has largely denied requests by grassroots campaigners to block portions of a new Florida law that restricts the state's citizen-driven process for getting constitutional amendments on the ballot. Organizers of separate campaigns to expand Medicaid and legalize recreational marijuana had urged U.S. District Mark Walker to block implementation of parts of the law, arguing that the new requirements violate their First Amendment rights. But in an order issued Wednesday, Walker granted a narrow injunction, barring state officials from enforcing one section of the law criminalizing ballot petition fraud against one campaign staffer. The order means that at least for now, the campaigns will largely have to operate under the new restrictions as they try to gather enough signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot. Legislatures in dozens of states have advanced bills recently to crack down on the public's ability to put measures up for a vote, according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. Voting rights advocates say the trend betrays the promise of direct democracy. Under Florida's new law, an individual could be charged with a felony if they collect more than 25 signed ballot petitions, other than their own or those of immediate family members, and don't register with the state as a petition circulator. The law signed last month by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis also gives campaigns just 10 days instead of the previous 30 to return signed petition forms to local elections officials. Petitioners could also face stiff fines if they don't return the petitions on time, or send them to the wrong county. Lawmakers argue that the new restrictions are needed to reform a process they claim has been tainted by fraud. The Republican-controlled Legislature pushed the changes months after a majority of Florida voters supported ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights and legalize recreational marijuana, though the measures fell short of the 60% needed to pass. Attorneys for the campaigns Florida Decides Healthcare and Smart & Safe Florida have argued the new law makes gathering enough petitions from voters prohibitively expensive and effectively impossible. In his order, Walker wrote that the new provisions have caused 'an immediate reduction in protected speech' by constraining the campaigns' ability to collect petitions — and volunteers' willingness to help. But Walker said the campaigners didn't prove that their free speech rights had been 'severely burdened.' 'Instead, the record shows that these provisions simply make the process of getting their proposed initiatives on the ballot more expensive and less efficient for Plaintiffs,' Walker wrote. But there are still free speech concerns to address as the lawsuit moves forward, Walker noted: 'this Court is not suggesting that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their First Amendment challenges to the new deadline and associated fines.' In a statement, Mitch Emerson, the executive director for Florida Decides Healthcare, said he remains optimistic for the legal challenge ahead. 'While the Court did not grant every part of our motion for preliminary relief, this is far from the final word,' Emerson said. A spokesperson for Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


Axios
13 minutes ago
- Axios
DOJ sues Texas over in-state tuition for undocumented students
The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday sued Texas over a decades-old law letting undocumented students receive in-state tuition, despite about half of the other states offering the same eligibility. Why it matters: The challenge could reshape access to higher education for thousands of undocumented Texans — and could intensify legal scrutiny of similar tuition policies in other states. Driving the news: The DOJ alleges the state's in-state tuition law is unconstitutional and violates federal immigration law. Federal law prohibits undocumented immigrants from getting "tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens," the complaint states, also citing Trump-era executive orders directing agencies to block such policies. State of play: The lawsuit comes just after the state Legislature adjourned without passing a bill to repeal the statute. Senate Bill 1798, authored by Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), would have repealed the policy and also prohibited universities from providing financial aid to undocumented students. How it works: Texas has granted in-state tuition to undocumented students since 2001, when it became the first state to extend eligibility. To qualify, students must live in the state for three years, graduate from a Texas high school, and sign an affidavit promising to seek legal status. About 19,000 students have signed the affidavit, per state officials, the Texas Tribune reports. Zoom out: 24 states, including the District of Columbia, offer in-state tuition to undocumented students, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal — though Florida repealed the policy this year. What they're saying: "The Justice Department will relentlessly fight to vindicate federal law and ensure that U.S. citizens are not treated like second-class citizens anywhere in the country," U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Wednesday. The other side: Supporters say the policy signed by then-Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, helps students succeed, fuels the economy, and strengthens the workforce. "This lawsuit would eliminate states' abilities to have these clearly beneficial tuition policies. It would push higher education further out of reach and roll back decades of progress in expanding opportunity and supporting students who are already part of our communities," Todd Schulte, president of immigration nonprofit said in a statement.