Missouri lawmakers filed hundreds of bills related to education for the 2026 legislative session.
But when the session wrapped up in mid-May, only a few had made it through both the House and Senate and landed on the governor’s desk.
In addition to the required education budget bills, a Beacon review found only four education bills that were approved by both houses. Of those, three had not yet been signed into law by Gov. Mike Kehoe at publication time.
On April 23, Kehoe signed legislation that aims to protect against antisemitism in both K-12 schools and higher education.
Legislation adding a governor-appointed board to hear appeals of decisions from the Missouri State High School Activities Association, which coordinates athletics and other extracurricular activities for both public and private schools in the state, awaits Kehoe’s signature.
So do a bill allowing trained and armed “rangers” to provide school security and another that adjusts requirements for public college board members.
But other attempts to pass education laws foundered, including many proposals related to higher education, religion in public schools and the movement known as “school choice.”
The Missouri Independent reported that a 90-page education bill that would have, among other things, moved the state’s private school scholarship program out of the treasurer’s office wasn’t brought up for a vote, in part due to opposition from St. Louis Archbishop Mitchell Rozanski.
Another bill, which failed after charter school-related negotiations broke down, would have allowed the legislature to shape an A-F grading system for the state’s schools. That grading system could still become reality, because Kehoe also made it part of an executive order.
But most of the proposals will have to wait until next year for another shot at becoming law. Meanwhile, here’s what to expect from the potential new laws.
Antisemitism
House Bill 2061, sponsored by Republican Rep. George Hruza of St. Louis County, aims to combat antisemitism in public schools and universities. It says schools should treat antisemitism the same way they treat racial discrimination.
The new law uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, which gives examples such as denying the Holocaust, using negative stereotypes such as claiming that Jews are conspiring to harm humanity or calling for harm to Jews.
The definition also includes making some criticisms of Israel, such as calling its existence a “racist endeavor,” holding it to a higher standard than other democratic nations, comparing contemporary Israeli policy to the Nazis or holding all Jews responsible for Israel’s actions.
The parts of the definition related to Israel had raised concerns that it could limit free speech, though the new law specifies that it shouldn’t be interpreted to infringe on any First Amendment rights.
The law says that to determine whether criticism of Israel is antisemitic, “the educational institution shall consider whether the speech is explicitly related to public policy or applies materially inconsistent standards, expectations, or condemnation to Israel as compared with other nations in comparable circumstances.”
Schools are required to define and prohibit antisemitism in their student, faculty and employee codes of conduct. They must report incidents and complaints to the Title VI coordinator at the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). Students, parents and employees can submit complaints as well.
DESE will investigate complaints and give schools 30 days to address issues if they’ve engaged in or allowed antisemitic discrimination or harassment. If the school doesn’t take appropriate action, DESE will report it to the federal Department of Education and Department of Justice by making a Title VI complaint under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The law also says that public schools can’t discriminate on the basis of “race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or marital status.”
School security
Senate Bill 905, sponsored by Sen. David Gregory, a Republican from St. Louis County, creates a program to train “rangers” to work in school security. The rangers would be required to go through background checks, physical fitness tests and training established by the state’s Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) commission.
The required training would be 160 hours or less and would include “close quarter combat; building security and hardening; bomb and arson; de-escalation; implicit and racial bias; active shooter training; preventative behavioral threat assessments,” search and search law, firearms, defensive tactics and first-aid “stop the bleed” training.
Active or retired law enforcement or military personnel could go through an abbreviated version of the training.
Rangers could carry lethal weapons, including firearms, if allowed by the school that employs them.
If they aren’t otherwise active law enforcement officers they would have limited arrest powers. They’d have to be employed by the school district, on school property and make arrests only related to weapons or trespassing.
It passed both houses on May 14 and awaits the governor’s signature.
School activities oversight
Senate Bill 863, sponsored by Sen. Jason Bean, a Republican who represents southeast Missouri, creates a governor-appointed committee to hear appeals of decisions made by a statewide nonprofit activities association.
The committee will be made up of five people and can hear appeals about student eligibility after transferring as well as “contests and contest procedures.”
The Missouri State High School Activities Association had come to at least one lawmaker’s attention after a controversial decision about a volleyball championship. The association also faced scrutiny over a rule that encourages gender and ethnic diversity on its board.
MSHSAA is a private nonprofit that serves both public and private schools and home school associations. It coordinates competitions among schools in sports, music, scholar bowl, speech and debate, theater and spirit activities.
The proposal doesn’t name MSHSAA and is written in such a way that it would also apply to any nonprofit statewide activities association that primarily facilitates athletic activities for high schools and receives fees from at least one public school.
It passed both houses on April 30 and now awaits the governor’s signature.
Higher education
House Bill 2896, sponsored by Rep. Chris Brown, a Republican from Kansas City, changes the requirements for board members of most of the state’s public universities.
For seven four-year universities and the State Technical College of Missouri, it limits the number of board members who can live in the county or city where the university is based to three or four, depending on the university.
The affected universities are Harris Stowe State University, Northwest Missouri State University, Missouri Southern State University, the University of Central Missouri, Southeast Missouri State University, Truman State University and Lincoln University of Missouri.
The bill also says that board members of Missouri State University must come from at least seven different congressional districts.
The legislation doesn’t affect the four University of Missouri System universities — the University of Missouri-Columbia, University of Missouri-Kansas City, University of Missouri-St. Louis and Missouri University of Science and Technology. It also doesn’t change requirements for Missouri Western State University.
It passed both houses on May 15 and now awaits the governor’s signature.
Budget
Funding for the state’s elementary and secondary education budget fell $190 million short of the amount set by the state’s foundation formula, which determines how much funding schools should receive.
The budget also includes $60 million for the MOScholars program, which provides private school scholarships. The program was originally designed to offer tax credits to donors who contributed to scholarship funds rather than the scholarships being directly funded by the state.
The amount in the budget is $10 million higher than last year, when the state first provided direct funding, which provoked a lawsuit.
After an earlier proposal to drastically reshape how the state allocates the higher education budget, lawmakers reversed course and kept funding similar to previous years. Under the earlier plan, some state universities would have abruptly lost more than half their funding.
The budget calls for the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development to suggest a new higher education funding formula by Dec. 1.
Both budget bills passed May 6 and now await the governor’s signature. He can also veto specific line items of budget bills.
