Bills Hit Floor in House, Senate
Senate Democrats have been delaying action on gubernatorial appointments and policy matters to start the beginning of the 2026 legislative session. This is due to the closing days of last legislative session and the special session on redistricting this past fall where Senate Republicans made the choice to use a procedural motion to cut off debate on several controversial issues. Those actions fundamentally altered Senate dynamics and carried forward into the start of the 2026 session as Democrats pressed for changes to Senate rules before allowing the chamber to move fully into floor debate on legislation.
This week, that impasse was resolved when the Senate adopted changes to its rules that make it more difficult to cut off debate. Also included in the rule changes was a change to require bills that contain changes from the House to sit at least one day prior to being debated on the floor of the Senate. Those changes cleared the logjam and allowed the Senate to transition from procedural disputes to substantive policy work.
Senate Debates MSHSAA, Parent's Rights
With the procedural impasse resolved, the Senate moved quickly into substantive debate. This week, senators debated two measures impacting Missouri schools: the Parents’ Bill of Rights and legislation proposing a new governing structure for the Missouri State High School Activities Association. While no final action was taken, the floor debates themselves are notable. They reflect the Senate’s return to full legislative operations and signal that major policy questions affecting schools are now being discussed openly by the full chamber.
Parents’ Bill of Rights (SB 948)
The Senate debated SB 948, sponsored by Senator Rick Brattin, which would establish a statutory Parents’ Bill of Rights outlining parental access to and involvement in their child’s educational experience. This issue is not new, as similar proposals have been considered in multiple prior sessions.
Members may review the full text of SB 948 here.
Our focus on this legislation remains consistent as previous years. We continue working with the sponsor and other legislators to ensure the bill provides meaningful parental access and transparency, while avoiding provisions that could place significant administrative burdens on school districts, increase litigation risk, or disrupt the teaching and learning environment that must remain central to our schools.
MSHSAA Governance Proposal (SB 863)
The Senate also debated SB 863, sponsored by Senator Jason Bean, which would create a new state level governing structure for organizations overseeing interscholastic activities, including MSHSAA.
Members may review the bill text here.
MSHSAA is a member of our School Administrators Coalition, and our organizations support MSHSAA and oppose any effort to take over the member-led organization.
MSHSAA Executive Director Dr. Jennifer Rukstad released a video message outlining the association’s concerns and perspective on the legislation. That video can be viewed here: PLEASE VIEW THIS IMPORTANT VIDEO MESSAGE FROM DR. JENNIFER RUKSTAD
In the News:
Sports Illustrated: MSHSAA breaks silence, issues rare statement as Missouri lawmakers advance oversight bill Read the article
Missouri Independent: Missouri lawmakers target high school sports governing body Read the article
Kansas City Star: This bill would put Missouri high school sports in politicians’ hands Read the article
Education Plus Creates New Resource: Legislative Overload in Public Education
A new resource titled Legislative Overload in Public Education has been compiled by EducationPlus, in collaboration with other members of Missouri’s school administrator coalition.
See the resource here: Legislative Overload in Public Education
The document provides a comprehensive, year-by-year catalog of legislation enacted between 2014 and 2025 that directly or indirectly impacts Missouri’s public schools. While not intended to be exhaustive, the compilation highlights the sheer breadth and volume of statutory changes affecting districts over the past decade, ranging from instructional mandates and accountability requirements to school safety, transportation, taxation, governance, and employee-related provisions.
It also serves as a useful reference point in discussions with boards, communities, and policymakers about the cumulative demands placed on public schools over time. Below is an accompanying article that utilizes this resource specifically for that purpose.
UnCommon Leaders Blog: "Let the Paint Dry,”
The piece examines the cumulative impact of constant legislative change, asking whether schools are being given sufficient time to fully implement, evaluate, and stabilize new policies before additional requirements are layered on.
Together, the resource and the article provide a thoughtful framework for understanding today’s legislative environment and for engaging in informed, constructive conversations about how policy decisions translate into real-world conditions in Missouri’s classrooms and districts.
Property Tax Bills Advance in House, Floor Debate Looms
In the Missouri House, attention is now turning to a package of property tax bills that are scheduled for a House Rules Committee hearing early this week and could be on the House floor late this week or early next week. Given the pace of activity, members should be watching these proposals closely and submitting fiscal note requests where appropriate.
Several of the provisions of these bills are a result of the interim committee that met around the state last summer and fall. The chair of that committee, Rep. Tim Taylor is sponsoring the measures.
While some conversations about modernizing local property tax practices may be warranted, we remain opposed to any effort that reduces local funding for Missouri schools or undermines stable local revenue streams.
Below is an updated summary of key property tax related bills that members should be following in the days ahead:
HB 2780
A wide ranging omnibus property tax bill that would make substantial changes to how local taxes are approved, calculated, and constrained across Missouri. While the bill touches numerous areas of property taxation, several provisions raise significant concerns for school districts and local governments.
Summary of HB 2780
Full Text of HB 2780
Our primary concerns with HB 2780 include the following:
Moving local tax elections to the November general election: HB 2780 would require that proposals to impose, continue, modify, or eliminate a property tax be submitted to voters only at the November general election. This change would eliminate flexibility for school districts and other political subdivisions to place levy questions before voters at other times of the year. Limiting elections to a single annual date could delay critical funding decisions and restrict districts’ ability to respond to local needs, particularly in fast-growing or rapidly changing communities.
Requiring tax abatements to be counted as revenue: The bill would require political subdivisions that adopt tax abatements or similar economic incentives to reduce their levy rates to offset the revenue associated with those abatements. It's important to note that school districts have no say on whether these abatements are granted. In some school districts, this provision could devastate district budgets.
Including new construction and improvements in Hancock rollback calculations:
Currently, new construction and improvements are excluded from certain Hancock Amendment rollback calculations. HB 2780 would eliminate that exclusion, meaning new growth would be counted when determining whether tax rates must be rolled back. This change would significantly limit districts’ ability to capture revenue from growth and could result in reduced funding even in communities experiencing increased enrollment and facility needs.
Reducing the minimum operating levy tied to state aid eligibility: HB 2780 would lower the minimum operating levy required to access certain state aid under the foundation formula from $2.75 to $1.50 beginning in the 2026-27 school year. While framed as relief for taxpayers, this provision raises concerns about weakening the local effort expectation embedded in the school funding formula and shifting additional pressure onto an already constrained state funding system.
Taken together, these provisions represent a significant shift in long standing property tax and school finance policy. While there may be room for discussion about improving assessment practices or voter transparency, HB 2780 goes well beyond process reforms and directly threatens local revenue capacity for Missouri public schools.
Given the bill’s breadth and potential fiscal impact, members are strongly encouraged to submit fiscal note requests and engage with House members as HB 2780 advances toward floor consideration.
HJR 148
A proposed constitutional amendment that would make drastic changes to how new construction, improvements, and debt service levies are treated under the Hancock Amendment.
Summary of HJR 148
Full Text of HJR 148
Our primary concerns with HJR 148 include the following:
Including new construction and improvements under Hancock rollback requirements: Currently, new construction and improvements are excluded from Hancock Amendment rollback calculations. HJR 148 would eliminate that exclusion, meaning revenue generated from growth would be counted when determining whether tax rates must be rolled back. This change would significantly restrict districts’ ability to capture revenue associated with growth and could result in reduced funding even as enrollment increases and facility needs expand.
Subjecting debt service levies to Hancock limitations: HJR 148 would also place school district debt service levies under the Hancock Amendment. This is a significant departure from long standing practice and raises serious concerns for school districts and taxpayers alike. Subjecting debt service to Hancock would limit districts’ ability to manage existing bond obligations effectively and would undermine financial flexibility that districts rely on to responsibly manage long term debt.
Importantly, this change could actually result in higher costs for taxpayers, not lower ones. Bond ratings could be negatively impacted if districts lose flexibility in how debt service is structured, increasing interest rates on future bonds. Districts would also lose the ability to refinance bonds to take advantage of lower interest rates or to pay off debt early, tools that are commonly used today to reduce overall taxpayer costs.
Taken together, these provisions would fundamentally alter how school districts finance facilities and manage long term debt. Rather than providing meaningful taxpayer relief, HJR 148 increases borrowing costs, reduces local control, and creates long term financial instability for school districts across the state.
Bills Tracked by the School Administrators Coalition
In order to help you keep on top of the bills that matter most to public education and school leaders, below we have included links where you can find summaries of all the bills we are currently tracking. These links update in real time, so if you bookmark the report, it will generate a new, updated report each time you visit the link.
Priority Bills
Property Tax Bills
All Tracked Bills
Note: This link updates in real time with the bills we are tracking, so if you bookmark the report, it will generate a new, updated report each time visit the link.
|
