Nevada Education Groups Oppose Senate Bill 161 Due to Potential Teacher Strikes
May 22, 2025 | 2025 Legislature NV, Nevada
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Concerns over Senate Bill 161 dominated the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs meeting on May 22, 2025, as educators and stakeholders voiced strong opposition to proposed changes that could redefine the legality of teacher strikes in Nevada.
The bill, which aims to modify arbitration procedures for teachers, has sparked heated debate due to its potential to allow work stoppages, slowdowns, or interruptions at individual school sites without being classified as a strike. Critics argue that this could lead to significant disruptions in education, undermining the stability of classrooms across the state.
Tom Clark, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards, emphasized the bill's flaws, stating, "Even if it's not the unions telling the teachers to strike, if they're in the middle of their contract negotiations and things aren't going well, that's just as disruptive." He highlighted that the bill's language could permit localized disruptions that would not be legally recognized as strikes, raising concerns about the impact on students and the community.
Dr. Mary Prezenczia, representing the Nevada Association of School Superintendents, echoed these sentiments, noting that the bill would affect all 17 school districts in Nevada. "A strike is defined as a stoppage of work, but under this bill, disruptions at just one school would not be considered a strike," she explained, warning of the potential chaos this could unleash in the education system.
Alexander Marks from the Nevada State Education Association criticized the bill for favoring one group of educators over others, arguing that it could disadvantage other bargaining units. "This bill redefines the word strike to say that for teachers only, it is not one," he stated, calling for fairness in the bargaining process.
Parents and community members also expressed their concerns. Bridal Neely, a parent, argued that the bill would empower unions at the expense of students' education. "This isn't about taking sides. It's about putting kids first and protecting the stability of their schools," she said.
As the committee deliberates, the future of Senate Bill 161 remains uncertain, with many urging lawmakers to prioritize the educational needs of Nevada's students over union interests. The outcome of this legislation could have lasting implications for the state's educational landscape, making it a critical issue for all stakeholders involved.
The bill, which aims to modify arbitration procedures for teachers, has sparked heated debate due to its potential to allow work stoppages, slowdowns, or interruptions at individual school sites without being classified as a strike. Critics argue that this could lead to significant disruptions in education, undermining the stability of classrooms across the state.
Tom Clark, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards, emphasized the bill's flaws, stating, "Even if it's not the unions telling the teachers to strike, if they're in the middle of their contract negotiations and things aren't going well, that's just as disruptive." He highlighted that the bill's language could permit localized disruptions that would not be legally recognized as strikes, raising concerns about the impact on students and the community.
Dr. Mary Prezenczia, representing the Nevada Association of School Superintendents, echoed these sentiments, noting that the bill would affect all 17 school districts in Nevada. "A strike is defined as a stoppage of work, but under this bill, disruptions at just one school would not be considered a strike," she explained, warning of the potential chaos this could unleash in the education system.
Alexander Marks from the Nevada State Education Association criticized the bill for favoring one group of educators over others, arguing that it could disadvantage other bargaining units. "This bill redefines the word strike to say that for teachers only, it is not one," he stated, calling for fairness in the bargaining process.
Parents and community members also expressed their concerns. Bridal Neely, a parent, argued that the bill would empower unions at the expense of students' education. "This isn't about taking sides. It's about putting kids first and protecting the stability of their schools," she said.
As the committee deliberates, the future of Senate Bill 161 remains uncertain, with many urging lawmakers to prioritize the educational needs of Nevada's students over union interests. The outcome of this legislation could have lasting implications for the state's educational landscape, making it a critical issue for all stakeholders involved.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting