Enacts provisions governing make up days of school for inclement weather
HB 1431 revises Missouri’s rules for making up school time lost to inclement weather and other emergency closures. It repeals and reenacts section 171.033 to define “inclement weather” broadly to include ice, snow, extreme cold, excessive heat, flooding, and tornadoes, and it updates the minimum attendance requirements that districts must satisfy. Under the bill, districts generally must make up the first six days of school lost to weather-related closures, and in later school years the requirement is framed in hours rather than days, with the first 36 hours lost requiring make-up and additional hours made up at a reduced rate if needed to meet the 1,044-hour annual requirement.
The bill also expands and formalizes several exceptions and alternatives. It preserves the commissioner of education’s authority to grant waivers when closures are caused by circumstances beyond district control, such as weather or fire. Beginning in 2020-21, districts with an approved alternative methods of instruction plan may avoid making up certain closure hours by using remote or other instructional methods during closures, subject to Department of Elementary and Secondary Education approval and limits on how many hours may be covered that way. The bill also applies these rules to half-day programs in proportion to their schedules and caps the total make-up burden at no more than 10 days for the 2024-25 school year.
HB 1431 would affect school districts, students, parents, and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education by changing how districts count instructional time and how they respond to weather-related or emergency closures. It would reduce the need for traditional make-up days in some circumstances, while requiring districts that use alternative instruction plans to meet specific communication, instructional, attendance, and special education planning requirements. The bill also includes an emergency clause, meaning it would take effect immediately upon passage and approval.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text and available context is practical and relief-oriented, aimed at helping districts manage repeated closures without unduly disrupting the school calendar. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided context, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from debate or roll call history. The structure of the bill suggests a policy balance between flexibility for districts and maintaining minimum instructional time for students.
Notable points of potential contention include the shift from mandatory in-person make-up days to alternative methods of instruction, the cap on how many hours can be covered through those alternative methods, and the Department’s role in approving plans and determining whether they negatively affect teaching and learning. Another possible issue is the bill’s phased and somewhat complex set of rules by school year, which could create administrative burdens for districts trying to track compliance.
The bill would amend Missouri’s school attendance and calendar law, section 171.033, by changing how districts satisfy minimum instructional time after closures caused by inclement weather or other emergency circumstances. It would preserve waiver authority for the commissioner of education, authorize approved alternative methods of instruction plans, apply the rules to half-day programs, and temporarily cap required make-up time for the 2024-25 school year. School districts would need to adjust local calendars, closure procedures, and instructional continuity plans, while the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education would take on approval and oversight responsibilities for alternative instruction plans.
The available context suggests a generally favorable, problem-solving approach to the bill, with the measure framed as immediate relief for districts affected by weather-related disruptions. The emergency clause reinforces that the bill is intended to address a practical scheduling problem rather than make a controversial policy shift. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s apparent administrative purpose.
Potential contention centers on whether districts should be allowed to replace lost school time with alternative methods of instruction instead of traditional make-up days, and how much discretion the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education should have in approving those plans. Districts may favor the added flexibility, while some stakeholders could be concerned about instructional quality, equity for students without internet access, implementation burdens, and whether remote learning truly substitutes for in-person school time. The bill’s detailed limits on alternative instruction and its phased rules by school year also suggest possible administrative and compliance concerns.