HB408 is a broad school-safety and school-governance bill that combines several related policy changes. It repeals and replaces existing section 160.775 and adds new provisions requiring schools and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to collect, maintain, and share aggregated reports of school safety incidents and credible threats, including incidents involving firearms, explosives, knives, and other weapons. The bill also revises Missouri’s anti-bullying law by tightening reporting timelines, expanding required policy components, and requiring monthly reporting of bullying, school violence, and crimes to school boards.
In addition to safety reporting, the bill creates the “Missouri Educators and Parental Empowerment and Rights Act,” which sets out a Parents’ Bill of Rights and an Educators’ Bill of Rights. These sections require local educational agencies to provide parents with information about curriculum, teachers, school records, data collection, school visits, field trips, and safety incidents, while also establishing teacher rights related to safety, professional treatment, preparation time, discipline authority, and workplace protections. The bill further requires school districts and charter schools to adopt student conduct codes emphasizing respect, civility, parental notification, and discipline procedures, and it directs schools to avoid policies that differentiate discipline primarily on the basis of race alone.
HB408 also imposes a statewide policy on student possession and use of electronic personal communications devices, commonly understood as cell phones or similar devices. Beginning with the 2026-27 school year, school districts and charter schools must adopt written policies generally prohibiting student use of such devices during regularly scheduled instructional time and mealtimes, with exceptions for IEPs, 504 plans, emergency health plans, disability-related accommodations, emergencies, and authorized educational use. The bill separately prohibits zero-tolerance discipline policies that automatically impose detention, suspension, expulsion, or other discipline without case-by-case discretion.
The bill’s impact on state law is substantial because it creates new statewide mandates for reporting, transparency, discipline, and device use while also limiting how districts and charter schools may structure certain policies. It affects the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, local school districts, charter schools, teachers, parents, students, and school employees by imposing new reporting duties, public-record requirements for aggregated safety data, parental access rights, teacher protections, and device restrictions. It also includes liability protections for employees and volunteers acting in good faith under the bill’s provisions.
The general sentiment reflected in the vote was strongly favorable: the House advanced the bill on third reading by a wide margin, 132-11. With no committee transcript available, the available record suggests broad support for the bill’s emphasis on school safety, parental involvement, teacher authority, and classroom order. The main points of contention likely center on the scope of parental access, restrictions on local school policy discretion, the ban on race-based disciplinary differentiation, and the statewide cell phone prohibition, all of which may raise concerns about implementation burden, privacy, and local control.
HB408 would repeal existing section 160.775 and replace it with a new framework covering school safety incident reporting, anti-bullying policy requirements, parental and educator rights, student conduct codes, and student device restrictions. It creates new obligations for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to collect and publish aggregated safety data, and it requires school districts and charter schools to adopt or revise policies on bullying, discipline, parent notification, and electronic device use. It also adds a prohibition on zero-tolerance discipline policies and provides immunity and fee-shifting protections for certain good-faith actions by school employees and volunteers.
The bill appears to have enjoyed strong support in the House, as shown by the 132-11 third-reading vote. The available context suggests the measure was framed around school safety, parental empowerment, teacher protections, and classroom discipline, themes that generally attract bipartisan interest. No committee transcript is available, but the vote margin indicates broad approval with only limited opposition.
Likely areas of contention include the bill’s limits on local school district discretion, especially the statewide cell phone ban, the prohibition on zero-tolerance discipline, and the requirement that districts avoid disciplinary policies that differentiate primarily on the basis of race alone. Some stakeholders may also object to the breadth of parental access rights, the reporting and transparency mandates, and the new obligations placed on schools and the education department. Supporters are likely to include lawmakers and advocates favoring school safety, parental oversight, and stronger classroom discipline, while opponents may include those concerned about privacy, administrative burden, and restrictions on local control.