Modifies provisions governing student attendance data reported for school accreditation processes
HB 1220 repeals and reenacts Missouri’s school discipline statute, section 160.261, and makes a broad set of changes to how school districts handle student conduct, safety reporting, and related records. The bill requires each local board of education to maintain a written discipline policy, distribute it to families, train employees on it annually, and specify procedures for corporal punishment, reporting school violence, handling students with disabilities, and maintaining confidentiality. It also requires school administrators to report specified serious crimes and acts of school violence to law enforcement and to share relevant individualized education program information related to violent behavior with staff who work directly with the student.
The bill adds or reinforces several student-safety rules, including a suspension condition that generally bars suspended students from being within 1,000 feet of district school property unless an exception applies, and a mandatory suspension of at least one year or expulsion for bringing a weapon to school, subject to limited administrative modification. It also defines “weapon” broadly, preserves district authority to discipline disorderly conduct and off-campus conduct that affects the school environment, and provides civil-liability protections for teachers, authorized personnel, and volunteers acting under district policy. In addition, it directs districts to keep records of serious discipline violations and share them with future enrolling districts.
A major policy change in the bill concerns school accountability and attendance reporting. For accreditation purposes, students expelled for bringing a weapon, violent behavior, or an act of school violence would not be counted as dropouts or included in persistence calculations. Beginning with the 2025-26 school year, students suspended, expelled, or removed to an interim educational setting for an act of school violence would also not be counted in district attendance or enrollment data used for the Missouri school improvement program or any successor accreditation system. This shifts the treatment of certain discipline-related removals in state reporting and accreditation metrics.
Overall, the bill appears aimed at strengthening school safety, clarifying discipline procedures, and preventing discipline-related removals from negatively affecting district accreditation data. The available context shows no recorded committee discussion or votes, so there is no documented public debate in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, the measure likely appeals to supporters of stricter school discipline and safety reporting, while potentially raising concerns among those worried about student rights, disability protections, and the impact of exclusionary discipline on students and families.
HB 1220 would repeal and replace section 160.261, RSMo, substantially revising Missouri law on school discipline policies, violence reporting, weapon-related suspensions, recordkeeping, and liability protections for school personnel. It also changes how certain discipline-related removals are counted in state accreditation and attendance/enrollment calculations, especially for the Missouri school improvement program and any successor system. The bill affects school districts, administrators, teachers, students, parents, and future receiving districts that obtain discipline records.
The bill’s text reflects a strong pro-safety, pro-discipline orientation, with an emphasis on reporting serious incidents, restricting access to school property by suspended students, and imposing significant consequences for weapons violations and violent behavior. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or partisan sentiment in the supplied materials. From the structure of the bill itself, the likely general sentiment is support among advocates for school safety and order, alongside concern from those who favor more flexible discipline practices or who worry about exclusionary consequences for students.
The main points of contention are likely to center on the bill’s strict discipline provisions and their effects on students. Potential concerns include the 1,000-foot exclusion rule for suspended students, the mandatory one-year suspension or expulsion for weapons violations, and the broad reporting and record-sharing requirements. Another likely area of debate is the bill’s treatment of students with disabilities, since it requires sharing IEP-related information about violent behavior while also stating that removal of students with disabilities remains subject to state and federal procedural rights. The attendance and accreditation changes may also be controversial because they remove certain disciplined students from district data calculations, which could affect accountability metrics and district incentives.