House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee
Event Log
Ann Kelley — Representative Ann Kelley asks how the Missouri Universal Reading Screener differs from current practice, then expresses concern that districts have already spent money on reading programs and teacher training and may now face additional costs and retraining. She clarifies that her concern is specifically about the assessment portion, and describes the screener as a simple, non-intensive reading check used to determine where students in grades one through three fall.
Ann Kelley — Representative Kelley discussed the challenge of helping struggling students by retaining them when necessary, while emphasizing that retention should not be so punitive that it discourages them from returning to school. He then underscored the urgency of supporting students by noting that 42% of fourth graders not reading is deeply concerning.
Ann Kelley — The witness explains that the advisory council originated in Ann Kelley’s bill and argues that it should be kept. The discussion adds that the council was intended to provide broad stakeholder input and support continuous improvement.
Becky Laubinger — Becky Laubinger was called during the roll call, with her name transcribed in two variant forms ('Lovinger' and 'Lawbanger').
Cathy Jo Loy — Called during the roll call.
Cathy Jo Loy — Representative Cathy Jo Loy is introduced as the presenter for House Bill 2872 and then begins her opening remarks, identifying herself as Kathy Jo Loy from District 163 (Carthage and East Joplin).
Cathy Jo Loy — Responded that a single universal screener could save money, though districts may need to purchase a new screener.
Cathy Jo Loy — Asked for clarification about whether the screener is a computer program and how it works.
Cathy Jo Loy — Explained that she was inspired by education conferences and the Mississippi reading reforms, and said phonics helped turn non-readers into readers.
Cathy Jo Loy — Said some parts of the bill are objectionable and questioned the timing because a large literacy bill passed in 2022.
Cathy Jo Loy — Argued that higher education also needs reform and described a Bright Futures experience where a certified Missouri teacher did not know what phonics was.
Cathy Jo Loy — Answered that the bill is not directly opposed to Senate Bill 681 and discussed the similarity between the measures.
Cathy Jo Loy — Said she wants to remove the commission because it adds an unnecessary layer of government and prefers one screener over four.
Cathy Jo Loy — Said she is open to advisory input but does not want administrators controlling the process.
Cathy Jo Loy — Explained that mandatory retention is meant to stop students from being passed along without readiness and shared a personal story about her son needing to be held back.
Cathy Jo Loy — Referenced as the sponsor or advocate for the bill being discussed.
Ian Mackey — Called during the roll call.
John Martin — Called during the roll call.
John Martin — Representative Martin is called on to ask a question.
Mark Meirath — Called during the roll call; transcribed as 'Meirth'.
Matthew Overcast — Called during the roll call.
Brad Pollitt — Called during the roll call; transcribed as 'Pollitt'.
Brad Pollitt — Brad Pollitt engaged in a continuous discussion about the bill’s school accountability framework. He asked whether the proposal was modeled on Mississippi’s approach, argued that it should include a poverty rating for districts serving students in severe poverty, raised concerns about charter schools moving into low-performing districts, and returned to the relationship between proficiency and grade level. He also defended the grade-level language and questioned whether the 5% growth threshold is appropriate, ending with a brief thank-you after the exchange.
Brad Pollitt — His earlier questions are referenced as having been partly answered.
Brad Pollitt — Representative Brad Pollitt is recognized by the chair and asks about the bill’s requirement that schools report graduates within six months of graduation. He then suggests adding active farming or agriculture as an acceptable post-graduation outcome. The response acknowledges his suggestion, says it will be considered, and thanks him for his willingness to continue working with the committee on the bill.
Brad Pollitt — Referenced as having mentioned workforce readiness.
Brad Pollitt — Representative Pollitt asked questions and then offered brief remarks about the bill’s reading-related provisions. He focused on mandatory third-grade retention for students not reading at grade level, the exceptions to that requirement, and whether the bill has enough enforcement to ensure school districts comply. He also emphasized the importance of preparing future teachers in evidence-based reading instruction and supported early retention as part of improving literacy outcomes.
Brad Pollitt — Otto Fage says Representative Pollitt had claimed nothing was done in SB 681 on EDPEP, and disputes that claim.
Brad Pollitt — Referenced as the member who had wanted this question asked but was absent because he had leave.
Kem Smith — Called during the roll call multiple times.
Kem Smith — Addressed by name when the speaker asks a follow-up question.
Kem Smith — Representative Smith asks whether the proposal, if passed as written, would create additional administrative burden for the administrators represented by the witness.
Kem Smith — Representative Smith discussed concerns and refinements related to the literacy bill. She argued that retention should occur in third grade rather than later because younger children are more resilient and schools can help parents navigate the process. She then shifted to reading instruction, saying the bill appears to remove three-cueing entirely rather than simply limiting it as a primary method, and emphasized that teachers should still be able to use creative instructional tools. Smith thanked a colleague for testimony, then returned to the bill to say she is not opposed but wants to refine it using her educator perspective and lessons from Mississippi. She described Mississippi’s literacy reforms as a sequence of investments that included literacy coaches, kindergarten readiness, and other supports before mandatory retention, and argued that similar supporting components should be included here. She also raised implementation concerns about how under-resourced and rural districts would fund staff, materials, and time for universal screening, and questioned whether the bill’s incentives could create disincentives or other unintended consequences.
Kem Smith — The discussion centers on Representative Kem Smith’s position in the debate over early-grade education policy. The speaker clarifies that Smith is not advocating pushing too much curriculum onto kindergartners, agrees with Smith’s emphasis on providing full supports, and then continues by referencing concerns about the negative consequences of retention, noting that such effects are less severe in earlier grades.
Kem Smith — Representative Smith commented from personal experience teaching in Clayton and other St. Louis districts, using that perspective to discuss how funding and the educational approach affect literacy outcomes, including reference to a funding foundation formula task force.
Kem Smith — Representative Smith is called on and asks about SB 681, questioning whether the state is expecting results too quickly and whether there is evidence that the training efforts are producing growth or other meaningful outcomes.
Connie Steinmetz — Connie Steinmetz was called during roll call and then responded 'Here,' confirming her presence.
Connie Steinmetz — Connie Steinmetz questioned the bill’s approach to measuring school performance, expressing concern about changing expectations and suggesting a longer review window such as three, five, or seven years. She argued that DESE may already provide more information than a simple letter grade, said schools should be recognized for broader successes beyond reading and writing, and worried the bill could be a step backward. She then moved into clarification questions about the bill’s timing and related reporting details.
Connie Steinmetz — Connie Steinmetz was called on to ask a quick question, then explained her background teaching kindergarten and working as a reading specialist. She said she strongly supports the science of reading, Wilson training, and phonics, but objected to prohibiting certified teachers from using tools like the 3Q system, arguing that teachers should not have professional instructional resources taken away or be punished for using them.
unnamed witness / bill sponsor — Explained that they have discussed implementation concerns with DESE and have another meeting later that afternoon.
Stacey Mallory — The first witness in favor of the bill is called forward to testify.
Stacy Melarine — Stacy Melarine, a Louisiana member of the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, testifies in support of the bill and explains that Louisiana’s education reforms, including the A through F letter grading system, are part of the reason she supports it.
Louisiana education representative — The Louisiana education representative explained how the state structures curriculum and accountability: local districts choose curricula, the Board of Education sets standards, and the Department of Education reviews and ranks materials as high-quality. He noted that districts generally retain choice unless a school is academically unsuccessful, and described Louisiana’s broader accountability approach as using public data and letter grades to motivate improvement rather than punish schools. He said families were not surprised by the results, emphasized that Louisiana does not use monetary incentives, and briefly mentioned work on differentiated pay for educators in high-demand fields. He also reviewed the state’s accountability history, including the 1999 star system and the 2013 A–F model, and stressed that the most important feature is a clear, parent-friendly one-page accountability document that gives an honest assessment of a school. He concluded by urging lawmakers to recognize that improving education can change a child’s entire life trajectory.
Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education representative — Said they were representing the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education for Region 4 and that the state covered travel costs.
Otto Fajan — Testified in opposition on behalf of Missouri N.A. and said he had sent the chair a research report from ECS.
Mari Scott — Introduces herself as an advocate fellow for Missouri Charter Schools and begins testimony.
unidentified witness — The witness is thanked for their testimony and dismissed after no questions from the committee.
Mike Harris — Mike Harris, speaking for the Missouri State Teachers Association, testified that MSTA supports accountability systems that genuinely improve student learning but opposes the bill’s reliance on a single A-F letter grade and escalating standards. He argued that accountability should use multiple measures and provide support rather than create a moving target, narrow the curriculum, increase burnout, and drive experienced teachers out of the profession. He also emphasized that a single letter grade would overshadow other data and context, and concluded by saying MSTA is willing to continue working with the chair and committee on the bill language.
Mike Harris — Testifies in opposition on behalf of the Missouri State Teacher Association, supporting early intervention but opposing a single screener.
Corey Codell — Corey Codell, from the Show-Me Institute and the University of Missouri, testified in support of the bill and left written testimony for the committee. He argued that Missouri schools are headed in the wrong direction and praised the bill’s focus on academic achievement, including clear letter grades and accessible report cards. He supported ratcheting up grading thresholds over time, suggested giving growth more weight in school grades, and explained that growth is a strong measure of school performance that is not simply driven by poverty or existing achievement levels. He then described how the University of Missouri contracts with DESE to calculate growth measures using student-level data and statistical modeling, where predicted scores are compared to actual performance. He said the model is designed not to reward wealthier or higher-achieving schools unfairly, that DESE holds the data and the information is public, and confirmed the growth measures use state testing data rather than NAEP.