Conference committee advances HB 2,382 to require fetal‑development video in courses and to shift State Board pay authority

A conference committee session on education reviewed a Senate substitute for House Bill 2,382 that would require school districts to include a three‑minute, high‑definition presentation on early human fetal development in any course or other instruction that addresses “human growth, human development or human *********,” and members discussed an amendment that would grant the State Board authority to set its own member compensation.

The bill language, as read at the meeting, would “enact a new section of law requiring school districts to include a human fetal development presentation as part of any course that addresses human growth, human development, or human *********,” and specifies that “this presentation would be a high quality computer generated animation or high definition ultrasound of at least 3 minutes in duration and which are the development of the brain, heart, and other vital organs in early human fetal development,” according to comments recorded by the committee’s reviser.

Committee members repeatedly pressed staff for detail about scope and implementation. Representative Poskin asked whether a teacher whose sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with the presentation would be required to teach it; the reviser replied, “This bill does not speak to any school district policies with regard to how it would require or allow a teacher to teach or not teach a particular course class or presentation,” and said local control over curriculum and teacher assignments would remain intact. The reviser added the bill does not change existing statutes or regulations and that curriculum creation and implementation remain the responsibility of local school boards.

Members also asked whether the bill limits the requirement to particular grade levels. The reviser said the statutory language covers “any course or other instruction that addresses human growth, human development or human *********,” and several members observed that phrasing could capture instruction across K–12. Representative Poskin noted that because statewide biology standards require instruction on fertilization and related topics, the requirement could apply broadly: “We would be inserting ourselves 3 minutes into every single course in the state,” Poskin said, pressing staff to confirm whether the bill’s language would reach general biology classes.

The proposal does not identify a specific video vendor or title; as a committee member pointed out, “I don't see that there's It says that every course must show a video. ... It doesn't specify the video.” The reviser reiterated the language is short and does not address current regulations on how sex education is taught; the bill would “add this requirement to current law if it were to pass,” the reviser said.

Separately, committee members considered an amendment to the Senate substitute that would remove specific numeric pay details and give the State Board authority to set its own pay. Supporters described the amendment as a measure of autonomy and parity with a prior request from the State Board; opponents said it departs from how other statewide elected boards’ pay is established in statute and raises transparency and funding concerns. Senator Sykes said she could not support the amendment, stating, “I think there's no existing funds. We would be setting in statute something completely different ... and we are making a change for this” without allocating additional dollars.

Staff told the committee that last year’s appropriation reported by KSDE for State Board base pay and fringe benefits was approximately $140,000, and that any increase requested by the State Board would need to come from existing agency funds unless the legislature provided a separate appropriation. Jennifer Light of KLRD told the committee, “It is not a line item in the bill as it is. ... If you were wanting it as a line item in the bill, it is not currently and would need something to have it be called out as a specific item in the bill.” Several members urged some method of budget transparency — either a line item or a clear entry in the agency budget synopsis — so the legislature could track total spending on State Board compensation.

Committee members asked procedural questions about whether the education subject matter connection justified adding the pay language to the curriculum bill; the reviser and other staff said education policy and compensation have been combined in prior education bills and that the measure would be “an act concerning education.”

By the end of the meeting, members indicated they were in agreement to move forward with the language under discussion. The committee recorded no formal roll‑call vote in the transcript; a committee member closed the session saying, “I think we are in agreement and we will move forward.”

Implementation details remain unresolved: the bill as discussed does not define “course,” does not specify grade levels, does not name the video(s) to be used, and does not appropriate additional funds for any State Board pay changes. Committee members noted those items — video selection, grade‑level scope, and budget tracking — would be addressed later or left to local boards and the department’s budget documents.

What’s next: the committee said it would proceed with the conference process on the substitute language and proposed amendment. Because the transcript does not show a formal committee vote or final passage, the measure’s next procedural steps depend on the conference committee’s formal actions and subsequent legislative scheduling.