SB240 creates a new “Student Secular Bill of Rights” for Kentucky public schools. The bill gives students an explicit right to practice religion or not practice religion on school grounds and at school events, while prohibiting school-sponsored religious activity, school-sponsored prayer, religious instruction in the curriculum, coerced reading of religious texts, and school-sponsored religious displays or messaging. It also defines a wide range of terms related to religion in schools, including prayer, proselytizing, endorsement, religious activity, and school event, and it preserves student religious expression in certain individual assignments and private personal expression so long as it does not disrupt school operations or infringe on others’ rights.
The bill also requires each school district to adopt a grievance process by November 1, 2026, with deadlines for acknowledging, investigating, and resolving complaints, and it allows students or parents to sue for declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief. It waives sovereign and governmental immunity for claims under the new section and authorizes attorney’s fees for prevailing plaintiffs. In addition, the Kentucky Department of Education must issue model policies, guidance, and training materials, and districts must train school officials beginning in the 2026-2027 school year.
Beyond the new rights section, SB240 amends existing Kentucky school statutes to narrow or remove several religion-related provisions. It preserves voluntary patriotic exercises like the Pledge of Allegiance and instruction about the flag, allows teachers to teach about religion in a secular, academic way, and permits posting or reading of certain historical and patriotic documents. It also adds a requirement that schools serving grades 6-12 display child labor law information in English and Spanish and post it online. The bill repeals statutes requiring Bible reading, allowing creationism in evolution instruction, and displaying the Ten Commandments.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears neutral to supportive in concept, but there is no committee transcript or vote history provided to show debate or formal support/opposition. Based on the text, the bill is framed as a student-rights and religious-neutrality measure, suggesting support from advocates of separation of religion and public schooling, while likely drawing opposition from those who favor greater accommodation of religious expression or object to repealing Bible, creationism, and Ten Commandments provisions.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s broad restrictions on school-sponsored religious expression, its explicit ban on certain displays and instruction, and its waiver of immunity plus private right of action, which could expose districts to litigation. Another likely issue is the repeal of long-standing religion-related statutes, which may be viewed by some as removing traditional or patriotic content from schools, while others may see that as necessary to avoid government endorsement of religion.
SB240 would substantially revise Kentucky education law by creating a new statutory framework governing religion in public schools, limiting school officials’ involvement in religious activity, and establishing enforceable student rights against school-sponsored religious practices. It would also repeal three existing KRS provisions related to Bible reading, creationism, and Ten Commandments displays, while leaving in place and clarifying secular instruction about religion, patriotic exercises, and certain historical documents. School districts and the Kentucky Department of Education would face new policy, training, grievance, and compliance obligations, and districts could face civil liability for violations.
No committee discussion or recorded votes are provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from debate or roll call. From the bill text alone, the measure appears to be advanced as a rights-protection and neutrality bill, but it also clearly targets longstanding religious practices in schools, which suggests it would likely generate both support from civil-liberties and church-state separation advocates and opposition from religious conservatives and supporters of school prayer or religious displays.
The most notable contention points are the bill’s prohibition on school-sponsored prayer, religious instruction, and religious displays; its repeal of Bible-reading, creationism, and Ten Commandments statutes; and its broad enforcement provisions, including a private right of action, attorney’s fees, and waiver of sovereign immunity. Supporters are likely to emphasize student freedom of conscience and neutrality among religions and nonbelief, while opponents are likely to argue that the bill goes too far in restricting religious expression and removing traditional religious references from public schools.