An effort to place a moratorium on new charter schools drew passionate testimony Thursday afternoon as opponents argued the bill could stall progress happening in that sector of Nevada’s K-12 landscape.

Assembly Bill 462, sponsored by the Democratic-controlled Assembly Education Committee, would prevent any new charter school applications from being accepted or approved until January 2021 — a move that could significantly curtail growth. But Assemblyman Tyrone Thompson, who chairs the committee, framed the proposed legislation as more of a “pause” that could ensure the sustainability and success of the state’s charter school portfolio.

“AB462 is about quality, capacity and community,” he said. “Let’s take a deep breath and take time to plan accordingly so that we can deliver on the promise that every child deserves a high-quality education in our state.”

To that end, Thompson walked the committee through an amendment that largely focuses on accountability. For instance, the amendment would require the State Public Charter School Authority — the largest sponsor of charter schools — to establish a five-year “growth management plan” and to complete evaluations of each charter school by January 2021. The SPCA would submit a report detailing the progress of both those tasks to the Legislative Committee on Education during the interim.

The amendment also would require charter school applicants to notify district superintendents of their plans, which include disclosing the location of the proposed school. It also notes the moratorium would not apply to amended charter applications submitted before the bill’s passage or “an applicant who submitted a notice of intent on or before January 15, 2019, for opening in the Summer of 2020 and who is engaged in the applicable application cycle.”

Some Republican committee members pushed back against the bill, questioning the value of a moratorium as the state experiences population growth — and the logic, given evidence of high academic achievement.

Last year, the Nevada Department of Education rated every charter school campus for the first time rather than an overall rating for every charter network. Three-fourths of state-sponsored charter schools received a rating of three stars or higher, which points toward a healthy number of students meeting or exceeding the state’s academic expectations.

Critics say charter schools generally don’t serve as many English language learners, students coming from low-income households or students with disabilities, although charter leaders have been working to boost those demographics. Fiscal mismanagement also dogged a few charter schools in recent years, leading to their closure, and some virtual charter schools have struggled with lackluster student performance.

Republican Assemblywoman Lisa Krasner posed a simple question to Thompson: “Why do you think this is important to bring this bill?”

His reply: “Because we need to have a successful charter school system. We need to make sure that every child that enters this system is going to exit with a quality education. That’s my charge as a legislator.”

Three members of the Nevada State Education Association spoke in support of AB462, including President Ruben Murillo, who didn’t mince words regarding charter schools that are underperforming.

“I’m a realist,” he said. “I know that charter schools are not going to go anywhere. I’m a little surprised at the opposition to pausing — to fixing — a system that is broken so that every charter school student has the same opportunity as those successful schools.”

Assemblywoman Alexis Hansen chastised NSEA members for what she called “inflammatory statements” and said discussing performance is dicey given problems across the state, including within traditional public schools.

“I think everybody in this would admit we’ve got a performance problem in this state — public school, maybe public charters as well,” she said. “While we’re not looking to pit each other against each other, we’re hoping that we’ll all be honest with the performance and let’s address it. If this bill is to address the performance of charters, then so be it. But we also need to address the performance of public schools that aren’t charter and be honest and open in that discussion and not hold charters to a different standard than public schools.”

Murillo said he wasn’t trying to attack charter schools. If the NSEA wanted to attack charters, he said, its members would be pushing for a cap on the number of charters allowed.

Seventy-two people had signed up to speak in opposition to AB462, but the half-hour limit on public comment for each group — supporters, opponents and those testifying neutral — prevented all from making their remarks. However, lawmakers heard from a diverse group of parents, students and educators who oppose the moratorium.

Renee Fairless, principal of Mater Academy Mountain Vista, said the moratorium would take choice away from underserved students, like the ones who attend her school. All the school’s students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, she said, and more than 60 percent are hispanic.

“I wish in education we could pause. It doesn’t happen,” she said. “Kids show up every day. You hope the teachers show up every day. The bottom line is you can’t have a pause when the growth continues to be the way it is.”

State Board Member Felicia Ortiz also testified in opposition, arguing the bill could prevent successful charter schools from opening in needed locations. The amendment language about charter school evaluations also struck her as potentially harsher than anything that exists for traditional public schools.

“I think we should be focusing more of our time and attention on how we’re funding schools and ensuring that all schools have the resources to be successful and not distracting with this kind of pause on giving students additional options,” she said.

The Clark County Education Association and the Clark County School District testified neutral on the bill. School District lobbyist Brad Keating, however, noted that communication from charter schools has been lackluster at times, leading to planning difficulties when it comes to enrollment projections and construction projects.

Thompson thanked the speakers for being “frank and candid” and expressed hope for bipartisan support.

“That’s what’s going to get us where we need to go,” he said.