Schools; allowing the School Security Revolving Fund to be used for certain purpose; requiring funds to be allocated for certain fiscal years, subject to availability. Effective date. Emergency.
SB1251 expands the permitted uses of Oklahoma’s School Security Revolving Fund. Under current law, the fund is used for school security purposes; this bill broadens that authority to expressly include establishing and maintaining a School Resource Officer Program, physical security upgrades such as cameras, gates, lighting, locks, doors, windows, geofencing, ballistic storm shelters, and mobile panic alert systems, and contracting with licensed mental health professionals to provide counseling and social services to students.
The bill also changes how the fund is deployed by removing the prior expenditure limitation and directing that, subject to available funding, up to $50 million be allocated from the fund each fiscal year and divided equally among all public school districts for three fiscal years beginning July 1, 2026. It includes a supplement-not-supplant requirement, meaning the money must add to, rather than replace, existing school security funding. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2026, and contains an emergency clause for immediate effectiveness upon passage and approval.
SB1251 amends 70 O.S. Supp. 2025, Section 5-148.2, which governs the School Security Revolving Fund in the State Treasury. The bill expands the statutory purposes for which the State Department of Education may budget and expend the fund, and it creates a new mandatory allocation structure for three fiscal years, subject to available funding. Public school districts would receive equal shares of the annual allocation, and the Department would be authorized to use the fund for both security infrastructure and student mental health-related services.
The available voting history suggests generally favorable committee support, with the Senate Education Committee reporting the bill DO PASS AMENDED by an 8-3 vote. The bill’s framing around school safety, security upgrades, and student support services indicates broad policy appeal, especially among lawmakers prioritizing campus protection and student well-being. The amendment and the split vote suggest some members had reservations about the funding structure, scope, or fiscal commitment, but the overall sentiment appears supportive.
The main points of contention likely center on the size and mandatory nature of the allocation, the removal of the expenditure limitation, and whether equal distribution among all public school districts is the best way to target security needs. Some lawmakers may also question whether the fund should be used for mental health counseling and social services in addition to physical security measures, or whether those services should be financed through separate programs. The 8-3 committee vote indicates that while the bill had majority support, a notable minority remained concerned about cost, prioritization, or program design.