Board workshop reviews Nevada discipline-law overhaul and Carson City’s restorative approach

At a board workshop on April 9, 2024, Anne Alexander, a statewide legal consultant, told the Carson City School District Board of Trustees that a series of bills since 2019 have “flipped [discipline law] on its ear,” narrowing when districts may remove students and imposing new process requirements.

Alexander said the 2019 legislation introduced an age-11 limit for most out‑of‑school removals, narrowed mandatory-removal categories and required student‑level restorative‑justice plans in certain circumstances. She called the reforms a “revolution in Nevada disciplinary law,” noting that subsequent 2021 cleanup bills added statutory definitions (suspension, expulsion, permanent expulsion), expanded appeal rights and adjusted special‑education rules. Alexander said 2023 changes further altered age and removal options for seven serious‑misconduct categories and that legislative reconciliation had still been underway.

The takeaway, Alexander said, is that districts must now meet both statutory limits and detailed procedural requirements, including timelines for appeals and the provision of in-person alternative instruction when a long‑term removal is ordered. She told trustees that the legislative changes did not include a fiscal note and therefore imposed substantive new duties without dedicated statewide funding.

District administrator Tasha Fuson described how Carson City has translated the statute into local practice. Under the district’s regulation 5.25, site administrators may impose short‑term suspensions (defined locally as 10 days or less). Fuson emphasized the district’s focus on restorative plans designed “for the adults” — meaning the plan structures how school staff support the student to learn replacement behaviors rather than a one‑sided behavior contract. She said the district has built a district intervention assistance team (psychologists, social workers, re‑engagement specialists and the McKinney‑Vento coordinator) to support schools in developing plans before removing students.

Fuson also explained operational details the law requires: when a suspension extends beyond two days the district must provide educational services (not merely homework packets), and when a long‑term removal or expulsion occurs the district must offer in‑person alternative education. She described the district’s “opportunity program” at Student Support Services for students removed long term and the transition teams that work on reentry plans to support reintegration.

Trustees asked about funding and rural capacity to provide in‑person alternatives. Alexander and Fuson said the statutes have not provided additional funding; Alexander said she has seen no fiscal notes accompanying the key bills, and Fuson outlined local staffing decisions — adding interventionists and paraprofessional supports — made to meet the obligations.

The board scheduled a follow‑up workshop that will include the district’s MTSS (multi‑tiered system of supports) team to show how behavior supports and mental‑health interventions feed into classroom practice. The workshop was for discussion only; no formal action was taken.