House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee
Key Moments
Stephanie Boykin — Stephanie Boykin was called during roll call and later recorded as voting aye.
Stephanie Boykin — Stephanie Boykin was introduced to comment and then spoke in support of the bill, sharing a personal recollection of having limited Black history instruction in school. She emphasized that Black history is an essential part of the American story and noted that students respond positively when these lessons are taught.
Mark Boyko — Responded to the roll call.
Mark Boyko — Voted aye.
Jamie Ray Gragg — Likely intended by the transcription as the member called during roll call.
Josh Hurlbert — Josh Hurlbert was referenced during the roll call and roll call vote, with the transcript showing repeated and slightly garbled listings of his name as part of the same attendance/voting sequence.
Ann Kelley — Ann Kelley was called during roll call, then offered an amendment and explained that it was intended to clean up a clerical error and adjust the bill’s language to focus more broadly on educating children rather than only public schools. The sequence ends with her voting aye.
Ann Kelley — Ann Kelley asked whether the statute is similar to teacher tenure and sought clarification on current principal dismissal rules. She then summarized her understanding that principals can be dismissed at any time before five years, but after five years they would need justification, similar to tenure.
Becky Laubinger — Responded to the roll call.
Becky Laubinger — Voted aye.
Cathy Jo Loy — Responded to the roll call.
Cathy Jo Loy — Included in the roll call as present.
Cathy Jo Loy — Voted aye.
Cathy Jo Loy — Representative Loy said she supports administrator evaluations but is concerned the bill is too restrictive on reasons for dismissal.
Ian Mackey — Ian Mackey is mentioned during procedural roll call and vote-related listings, first being called and marked present, and later appearing again in the roll call vote.
John Martin — Called during roll call.
John Martin — Included in the roll call as present.
John Martin — Voted aye.
Mark Meirath — Called during roll call.
Mark Meirath — Included in the roll call as present.
Mark Meirath — Listed during the roll call vote.
Matthew Overcast — Matthew Overcast is referenced twice in the meeting’s procedural roll call: first as present, and later during the roll call vote.
Brad Pollitt — Brad Pollitt is noted as present in the roll call, and his bill (No. 3532) is identified as one of the two bills being combined. He is then listed again during the roll call vote.
Brad Pollitt — Representative Brad Pollitt was called on and then asked the witness whether she had ever terminated a tenured teacher.
Melissa Schmidt — Melissa Schmidt is noted twice in the meeting’s procedural roll call: first as present during the initial roll call, and later as listed during the roll call vote.
Kem Smith — Included in the roll call as present.
Kem Smith — Voted aye.
Connie Steinmetz — Connie Steinmetz is noted as present during the roll call and later listed again during the roll call vote.
Connie Steinmetz — Initially thanked by mistake before the speaker corrected themselves to Representative Steinhoff.
Connie Steinmetz — Representative Connie Steinmetz expressed support for evaluations but asked for broader reasons for dismissal and clearer guidance on who is covered. She then followed up by asking whether building administrators are ever placed on a PIP.
Cecelie Williams — Cecelie Williams is noted twice in procedural context: first as present during the roll call and later as listed during the roll call vote.
Martin Jacobs — Martin Jacobs was recorded as voting aye/yes during the roll call vote.
Martin Jacobs — Representative Martin Jacobs asked whether the proposed Black history unit could serve as a model for other groups, such as Native Americans and Latino communities, and whether the unit could be structured chronologically or offered as a standalone course.
Martin Jacobs — Martin Jacobs is identified as a sponsor of House Bill 2197, then introduces himself as the representative for District 38 (Liberty and part of Kansas City North) and thanks the committee for the chance to present the bill. The discussion then continues with multiple references to his bill as the original filed version being compared side by side with Representative Banderman’s bill, including mention of the March date change and the distinction between automatic written cause and a request after five years. The bill is also credited with prompting further interest, and Jacobs is noted for highlighting the bill’s key feature: annual evaluation of administrators.
Martin Jacobs — Representative Martin Jacobs is repeatedly addressed during a continuous discussion about his comfort with the House Committee Sub version and his position on the process, with the exchange later continuing into witness-management remarks directed at him.
Tricia Byrnes — A speaker appears to address or invite Tricia Byrnes to comment, though the transcript text contains a likely transcription error referring to 'Representative Kelly.' The mention is ambiguous, but both entries describe the same moment and same intended member reference.
Ed Lewis — Chair Ed Lewis presided over the committee’s procedural action on the amendment and House Committee substitute, moving the vote forward, requesting the roll call, and recording his own aye vote.
Ed Lewis — Addressed as 'Mr. Chair' while the discussion continued.
Ed Lewis — The transcript says 'Senate representative,' but the context suggests a correction was not made; no direct match. No member ID assigned to Bosley because not in list.
Ed Lewis — Ed Lewis leads a sustained discussion on the bill’s protections for nonrenewed administrators and teachers, asking about the fairness of the notice process, whether there is any real enforcement or "teeth" to the bill, and how the annual evaluation and five-year request-for-reasons provisions would work in practice. The exchange centers on how the bill changes the district’s ability to let an administrator go and what explanation must be provided after consecutive years of employment.
Brad Banderman — Brad Banderman was present for the roll call and was later called again during the roll call vote.
Brad Banderman — Vice Chair Brad Banderman is introduced as the next questioner and then asks about the bill’s graduation requirements, specifically whether the relevant classes are taken after ninth grade.
Brad Banderman — Brad Banderman is referenced as sharing the vice chair’s concerns about graduation credits.
Brad Banderman — Representative Brad Banderman is identified as the sponsor of House Bill 2126, introduced as the representative for District 119 in Franklin County, and then brought into the discussion to explain his bill. He and Representative Jacobs discuss the differences between their bills, with Banderman focusing on the changes made during the process and the distinctions between the two versions.
Brad Banderman — Addressed as Vice Chair by the witness.
Kathy Steinhoff — Kathy Steinhoff is called during roll call, then speaks as Ranking Member to thank the amendment maker, says the amendment appears to clean up the bill, and asks why the phrase 'public school' was removed; later she is recorded voting aye.
Kathy Steinhoff — Representative Kathy Steinhoff was recognized to inquire about the bill and thanked the presenters for bringing it forward. She then raised concerns about how the proposal would affect graduation credits, echoing the vice chair’s concerns, and asked whether schools could instead be required to offer courses that count toward existing social studies credits.
Kathy Steinhoff — Representative Kathy Steinhoff was called on for the committee’s final question and asked the presenters about the differences between the two bill versions, including how Bill 2126 was left by the committee and the House Committee Sub version. Her point about the bill language was later referenced as part of the same discussion.
Kathy Steinhoff — Addressed as Ranking Member by the witness.
Tricia Byrnes — Tricia Byrnes discusses administrator tenure and nonrenewal, arguing that administrators should always strive to improve and that the bill does not stop a board from removing an administrator when necessary. She explains that the bill’s intent is to improve communication by telling administrators why they are being let go so they have a chance to understand and improve, and she says she would want to be told before being nonrenewed. The exchange ends with her thanking the gentlemen as the discussion moves on.