Reading improvement measure stalls on second round

A measure aimed at strengthening support for young Nebraska students who struggle with reading stalled during second-round debate April 8 after a failed attempt to cut off debate and force a vote on the bill.

LB1050, introduced by Glenvil Sen. Dave Murman at the request of Gov. Jim Pillen, would amend the Reading Improvement Act to require schools, beginning in the 2027-28 school year, to administer reading assessments three times a year to students in kindergarten through third grade.

Students experiencing a “persistent reading deficiency” at the end of third grade — based on performance on the statewide reading assessment, alternate reading assessments or a test-based student portfolio — could be required to repeat the grade.

Districts would be required to provide such students with “intensive acceleration” classes featuring smaller student-to-teacher ratios and diagnostic assessments.

As amended on general file, the bill would require that, beginning in the 2028-29 school year, students who are not proficient in reading by the end of third grade generally be retained. However, parents could request a meeting with school officials and would have the final say in cases of disagreement.

Retention would be limited to once per student, and the policy would exempt students with disabilities, those who already have received interventions and English language learners who have received less than two years of English instruction.

Additionally, beginning in the 2027-28 school year, districts would be required to screen K-2 students for dyslexia risk and provide interventions through a multi-tiered system of support. A medical diagnosis would not be required to receive those services.

Murman said current strategies have not improved reading outcomes and that identifying struggling students earlier, along with stronger parental involvement, is needed. He said the changes made to the bill during the first round of debate would ensure that retention is used only as a last resort and that parents have the final say.

“We can’t just keep doing what we’ve been doing and expect different results,” Murman said.

Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln also supported the measure, saying grade retention should not be viewed as a punishment or carry stigma. Retention already is used in schools, she said, and typically is decided through collaboration between schools and parents based on the best interest of the student.

Lincoln Sen. Jane Raybould opposed the measure and introduced a series of procedural motions to extend debate. She said LB1050 could impose significant costs on schools — about $850,000 in the first year and $800,000 annually thereafter.

Additionally, Raybould questioned the effectiveness of retention policies, saying there is little scientific evidence that they work. Short-term academic gains often fade over time, she said, and retention increases the risk of a student eventually dropping out of school.

“There is no evidence-based, research-based best practice that this is what will work,” Raybould said.

Sen. Merv Riepe of Ralston cited similar concerns regarding the cost of the proposal in his opposition to the bill. He said LB1050 would significantly expand student retention and, as a result, place new demands on schools without providing adequate support.

“We’re asking schools to do more with less, with less clarity and without resources,” Riepe said.

Lincoln Sen. Jason Prokop also opposed the measure, raising concerns about the emotional impact of grade retention on young students. Holding students back can undermine their confidence and sense of belonging in the classroom, he said, particularly at an early age when social development is critical.

After four hours of debate, Murman offered a motion to invoke cloture, which ends debate and forces a vote on the bill and any pending amendments.

The motion failed on a 31-4 vote. Thirty-three votes were needed. LB1050 is unlikely to be placed on the agenda again this session.