When parents can't agree on where their child should attend school, Nevada courts have established clear guidelines for resolving these disputes. This issue arises frequently—especially during kindergarten enrollment, middle school transitions, and high school selection.
The Supreme Court of Nevada's decision in Arcella v. Arcella, 133 Nev. 639, 403 P.3d 390 (2017) provides the framework judges use when making these determinations.
The Arcella Factors: Court Guidelines
When parents with joint legal custody can't agree on school choice, judges must consider these specific factors:
(1) the wishes of the child, to the extent that the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference;
(2) the child's educational needs, including, without limitation: (a) the child's unique educational needs, if any, taking into consideration the child's abilities and limitations; and (b) the curriculum offered at the schools in question;
(3) the parents' wishes;
(4) the child's prior school experience and current academic achievement;
(5) the location of the schools in relation to where the parents live;
(6) the convenience of the schools in relation to the physical custody schedule;
(7) the quality of the schools, including, without limitation: (a) accreditation; (b) curriculum; (c) standardized testing scores; and (d) the reputation of the schools;
(8) the ability of the child to adapt and transition to the schools;
(9) the effect, if any, that a change in schools would have on the child's relationship with siblings or peers;
(10) the need for continuity and stability in the child's education; and
(11) any other factor that the court deems relevant to the determination.
What This Means For Parents
In practical terms, the court weighs several key considerations:
- The child's preference (if they're old and mature enough to have a meaningful opinion)
- Specialized programs or support services the child needs
- School quality and academic performance
- How each school fits with the custody schedule
- How a change might affect the child socially and emotionally
- The value of keeping the child in their current school environment
How These Factors Apply in Practice
Based on Nevada precedent, certain factors typically carry significant weight:
- Special needs are prioritized. If a child has documented learning disabilities or needs specific programs, the school that better serves those needs often receives preference.
- Stability matters. Courts hesitate to uproot children from schools where they're thriving. Established educational environments are valued.
- Distance and custody logistics are practical considerations. A school that makes pick-ups and drop-offs impossible within the custody schedule faces challenges.
- Academic quality differences must be substantial. Minor differences in test scores rarely persuade a judge. The difference needs to be significant.
Preparing for a School Choice Case
Parents facing a school choice dispute should gather:
- School comparison data - Test scores, special programs, extracurricular offerings
- The child's educational history - Report cards, teacher evaluations, test results
- Documentation of special needs - IEPs, 504 plans, specialist recommendations
- Practical logistics - Maps showing distances from each home, transportation options
- Expert testimony - From teachers, school counselors, or educational specialists
Key Considerations
The court focuses on what's best for the child's education. Arguments should center on how a preferred school meets the child's specific needs, not on why a school is more convenient for a parent.
Many of these disputes can be resolved through mediation rather than a trial. This approach is typically faster, more cost-effective, and less stressful for everyone, especially the child.
For school transitions (especially to middle or high school), discussions should begin with the co-parent at least 12 months ahead. If agreement seems unlikely, filing a motion 9 months before the school year begins is advisable. Courts move slowly, and waiting too long can result in a rushed decision that defaults to the status quo.
Courts generally avoid changing schools mid-year unless absolutely necessary. Parents should plan accordingly and begin the process well in advance of the school start date.